And Ya'qub ibn Shaybah said: "It is the most authentic of them in terms of chain of narration (isnad)." Al-Tirmidhi (4) narrated from Ali, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that he said to Umar: "We have taken the zakat of al-Abbas for the previous year for the coming year." In another wording he said: "We had expedited the charity of al-Abbas for our current year last year" (5). It was narrated by Sa'id from 'Ata', Ibn Abi Mulaykah, and al-Hasan ibn Muslim, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as a mursal (hadith). Furthermore, it is an expedition of wealth whose cause of obligation has been established before its (actual) due time, so it is permissible, just like the expedition of settling a debt before its maturity date, the payment of an oath expiation after swearing but before violating it, and the blood money (expiation) of killing after the injury but before the death. Malik acknowledged the expedition of the expiation. It is distinguished from offering it before (6) the nisab because that is an expedition of it before its cause, which resembles offering the expiation before the oath or the killing expiation before the injury; moreover, in that case, one has offered it before both conditions, while here one has offered it before only one of them. Regarding their claim that "zakat has a specific time," we say: If a time is set for an act as a kindness to a person, he may expedite it and forgo the facilitation for himself, just like a deferred debt, or like someone who pays the zakat on the wealth of an absent person even if he is not certain of its obligation; for it is possible that the wealth may be destroyed during that time. As for prayer and fasting, they are purely acts of worship, and the timing in them is not rationally deduced, so it is necessary to limit oneself to them.

Section: It is not permissible to expedite zakat before owning the nisab, according to a consensus we are aware of. If one owns part of a nisab and expedites its zakat, or the zakat of a full nisab, it is not permissible because he has expedited a ruling before its cause. If he owns a nisab and expedites its zakat and the zakat of what he might acquire, what might be produced from it, or what he might profit from it, it is only sufficient for the (original) nisab, not for the excess. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: "It is sufficient for him," because it is a dependent of that which he owns. Our evidence is that he has expedited the zakat of wealth that is not in his ownership, so it is not permissible, just like the first nisab. Also, the zakat in excess of the nisab's zakat is only caused by the increase in ownership, and he has expedited the zakat before the existence of its cause, so it is akin to if he had expedited