This is the school of thought of Al-Shafi'i, because it is wealth he paid for what the recipient is entitled to in the second case; so when something occurs that prevents entitlement, its return becomes obligatory, like rent if the house collapses before occupancy. As for if he did not inform him, it is possible that it was a voluntary act (tatawwu'), and it is possible that it was a gift (hiba), so his claim regarding reclaiming it is not accepted. Therefore, according to the statement of Ibn Hamid, if the physical asset remains unchanged, he takes it back, and if it has increased with a connected increase, he takes it back with its increase, because it follows [the original] in cases of annulment. If it is a separate increase, he takes it back without its increase, because it occurred within the possession of the poor person. If it is deficient, he takes back the deficiency from the poor person, because the poor person became its owner upon receipt; so its deficiency is upon him, like an item sold if it is deficient in the buyer's hand, then he discovers its defect. If it is perished, he takes its value on the day of receipt, because whatever increased after that or decreased is the property of the poor person, so he does not guarantee it, like a dowry (sadaq) that perishes in the woman's hand. The fourth category is that the situation of both changes; its ruling is exactly the same as the ruling of the category before it.

Section: If the wealth owner says, "I informed him that it is an accelerated Zakat, so I have the right to reclaim it," and the recipient denies it, then the statement is that of the recipient, because he is the one denying, and the baseline is the absence of notification, and upon him is the oath. If the recipient dies, and the one who distributed the Zakat and the heir of the recipient disagree, the statement is that of the heir, and he swears that he does not know that the one he inherited from was informed of that. As for whoever says there is no reclaiming, there is neither an oath nor anything else.

Section: If the Imam takes the Zakat in advance, and it perishes in his hand, there is no guarantee (liability) upon him, and it is the responsibility of the poor. There is no difference between the wealth owner asking him for that, the poor asking him, or no one asking him; for his hand is like the hand of the poor. Al-Shafi'i said: If he takes it in advance without a request, he guarantees it.