the payment of the debt, because his need is more pressing. It is for this reason that Zakat is not mandatory on jewelry prepared for personal use. Al-Qadi’s statement should be understood as applying to someone whose goods are in excess of his needs, and this is better; for in this case, he is an owner of a Nisaab (threshold) that is in excess of his needs and his debt payment, so Zakat upon it becomes mandatory, just as if he had no debt upon him. As for if he possesses two Nisaabs subject to Zakat, and he has a debt that is of a different kind from them, and it is not paid from one of them, then you should place it in opposition to that which is more beneficial to the poor to place it in opposition to.

Section: As for the debt owed to Allah, the Exalted, such as Kaffarah (expiation) and Nadhr (vow), there are two opinions regarding it. One of them is that it prevents the obligation of Zakat just like the debt of a human being, because it is a debt that must be paid, so it is like the debt of a human being. This is indicated by the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "The debt of Allah is more deserving to be repaid." The other opinion is that it does not prevent it, because Zakat is more emphatic than it due to it being attached to the substance [of the wealth], so it is like the compensation for an injury (arsh al-jinayah), and it differs from the debt of a human being due to its emphasis and the direct demand for it. If one vows to give charity with specific wealth, saying: "It is incumbent upon me for the sake of Allah that I give as charity these two hundred dirhams when the year passes," Ibn Aqil said: He pays it for the vow and there is no Zakat upon him, because the vow is more emphatic due to its attachment to the substance, and Zakat is a matter of disagreement. It is possible that Zakat becomes mandatory upon it, and the charity fulfills it, except that he intends the Zakat with the amount of it, and that constitutes charity that is sufficient for both the Zakat and the vow, because Zakat is a form of charity, and the rest of it becomes charity for his vow, and it is not Zakat. If he vows to give part of it as charity, and that part is the amount of the Zakat or more, then according to this possibility, he pays what was vowed and intends the Zakat with the amount of it. According to the opinion of Ibn Aqil, it is possible that Zakat is mandatory upon him, because the vow only attached to a part after the cause of Zakat had occurred and its condition was completed, so it does not prevent the obligation, because the subject can accommodate both of them together. If what was vowed is less than the amount of the Zakat, the amount of the Zakat is mandatory, and the vow is included within it, according to one of the two opinions, and according to the other, both must be paid in full.