The debt remains. If he borrows and pays it, it is permissible for him to take [Zakat] because the debt remains and the obligation to pay still stands. The difference between this debt and a debt incurred for one's own interest is that this debt is taken due to our need for it to extinguish hostility and quell strife, so taking it while being wealthy is permissible, just like the warrior, the one whose heart is to be reconciled, and the agent. As for the debtor for his own interest, he takes it due to his own need, so his need and incapacity are considered, just like the poor, the destitute, the mukatab (contracted slave), and the traveler. If a person is wealthy but has a debt for an interest that he cannot afford to pay, it is permissible to give him what will enable him to pay it, along with what exceeds the limit of wealth. If we say that wealth is achieved with fifty dirhams, and he has one hundred but owes one hundred, it is permissible to give him fifty so that he may complete the payment of the one hundred without his wealth being diminished. Ahmad said: 'One who possesses fifty dirhams or its equivalent in gold is not to be given [Zakat] unless he is a debtor, in which case he is given [the amount of] his debt. If he could pay the debt without diminishing his wealth, he is not to be given anything.'

Section: If a man wishes to pay his Zakat to the debtor, he may hand it over to him so that he may pay it to his creditor. If he prefers to pay it directly to his creditor as a settlement of the debt, there are two narrations from Ahmad regarding this. One of them is that this is permissible. Abu al-Harith reported: 'I said to Ahmad: A man owes one thousand, and there was a man who owed one thousand in Zakat; he paid it on behalf of the one who owed the debt. Is this valid from his Zakat?' He said: 'Yes, I see no harm in that.' This is because he paid the Zakat for the settlement of his debt, which is similar to if he had paid it to him and he then paid off his debt. The second [narration] is that paying it to the creditor is not permissible. Ahmad said: 'It is more beloved to me that he pays it to him, so that he may pay it off himself.' It was said: 'He is needy and [one] fears that if he pays it to him, he will consume it and not pay off his debt.' He said: 'Tell him to appoint him as an agent until he pays it.' The apparent implication of this is that he should not pay the Zakat to the creditor except with the authorization of the debtor, because the debt is only upon the debtor, so its settlement is not valid except through his authorization.