is too weak for them, and the mentally disabled person cannot possess the intention for it. Zakat is a right attached to wealth, so it resembles the maintenance of relatives and wives, the compensations for injuries, and the values of destroyed property. The hadith was intended to mean the lifting of sin and physical acts of worship, as evidenced by the obligation of the tithe (ushr), sadaqat al-fitr, and financial rights. Furthermore, it is specified by what we have mentioned, and zakat on wealth is of the same nature, so we draw an analogy to it. Once this is established, the guardian shall pay it on their behalf from their wealth, because it is an obligatory zakat, so its payment is mandatory, like the zakat of an adult with full legal capacity; and the guardian stands in his place in performing what is due from him. It is also because it is a right incumbent upon the child and the mentally disabled person, so the guardian must perform it on their behalf, like the maintenance of their relatives. The intention of the guardian is considered in the payment, just as the intention is considered from the owner of the wealth.

417 - Issue: He said: (And the master pays zakat for what is in the possession of his slave, because he is his owner.)

This means the master is the owner of what is in the possession of his slave. There is a difference of opinion in the reports from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding the zakat on the slave's wealth that the master has granted him ownership of. It was narrated from him that its zakat is upon his master; this is the school of Sufyan, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y). It was also narrated from him that there is no zakat on his wealth, neither upon the slave nor upon his master. Ibn al-Mundhir said: This is the view of Ibn Umar, Jabir, al-Zuhri, Qatadah, Malik, and Abu 'Ubayd. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions corresponding to the two schools. Abu Bakr said: The issue is based on the two reports regarding the slave's ownership when his master grants it to him. One of them is that he does not own; Abu Bakr said: This is my chosen view, and it is the apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi here, because he made the master the owner of his slave's wealth. If it were owned by the slave, it would not be owned by his master, because the gathering of two complete ownerships in one property is inconceivable. Its reasoning is that the slave is property, so he does not own wealth, like livestock. According to this, his zakat is upon the master of the slave, because it is property belonging to him in the possession of his slave, so its zakat is upon him, like the wealth in the possession of a mudarib (investor) or an agent. The second view is that he does own, because he is a human who possesses the capacity for marriage, so he possesses wealth, like a free person. This is because, through his humanity, he is prepared...