Their analogy is inverted against them; for we say: This is an act of worship, so the possibility of performing it is not a condition for its obligation, like other acts of worship. For instance, fasting is obligatory upon the menstruating woman and the sick person who is incapable of performing it; prayer is obligatory upon the unconscious person and the sleeping person, and one who catches a portion of the beginning of the time (16) and then becomes insane, or the woman [begins to menstruate]. Hajj is obligatory upon one who becomes wealthy at a time during which he cannot perform Hajj, or [is prevented] by an obstacle from proceeding. Furthermore, the difference between them is that those are bodily acts of worship; one is tasked with performing them with one's body, so the inability to perform them causes them to lapse. However, this is a financial act of worship, and it is possible for a partnership for the poor to be established in his wealth, and for the obligation to be established as a liability upon him, even while he is incapable of performing the payment, much like the establishment of debts as a liability upon the bankrupt person and their attachment to his wealth due to his transgression.

Section: Third, Zakah does not lapse by the destruction of the wealth, whether [the owner] was negligent or not. This is the well-known view from Ahmad. Al-Maymuni narrated from him that if the nisaab is destroyed before the possibility of performance, the Zakah upon him lapses; but if it is destroyed after it, it does not lapse. Ibn al-Mundhir recorded this as a school of thought for Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him. This is the view of Al-Shafi'i, Al-Hasan ibn Salih, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. Malik held this view as well, except regarding livestock, for he said: Nothing is due from them until the collector (musaddiq) comes; if it perishes before his coming, there is nothing upon him. Abu Hanifah said: Zakah lapses with the destruction of the nisaab in every case, unless the Imam had demanded it from him and he refused, because it perished before the time of entitlement, so the Zakah lapsed, just as if the fruit perished before the harvest. Also, it is a right attached to the physical asset, so it lapses with its destruction, like the indemnity (arsh) for a crime regarding a slave who committed the crime. Those who made the ability to perform it a condition said: This is an act of worship whose obligation is attached to wealth, so its mandatory nature lapses with its destruction before the possibility of performing it, like Hajj. Those who supported the first view said: It is wealth that became a liability, so it does not lapse with the destruction of the nisaab, like debt, and the possibility of performance is not a condition for its guarantee, like the price of