This means that the intention is for him to believe that it is his Zakat, or the Zakat of one on whose behalf he is paying, such as a child or an insane person. Its place is the heart, because the place of all beliefs is the heart.

Section: It is permissible to advance the intention before the performance by a short time, like all other acts of worship. And because it is permissible for proxy to be used in this [matter], considering the accompaniment of the intention with the act of payment leads to the risk of losing his wealth. So if he pays the Zakat to his agent, and he [the principal] intends it, but not the agent, it is valid provided that his intention does not precede the payment by a long time. If it precedes it by a long time, it is not valid, unless he had the intention at the time of handing it to the agent, and the agent had the intention at the time of handing it to the recipient. If the agent had the intention but the principal did not, it is not valid, because the obligation is attached to him, and the discharge occurs on his behalf. If he pays it to the Imam while having the intention, and the Imam does not have the intention at the time of paying it to the poor, it is valid, even if it is a long time later, because he is the agent of the poor. If a person gives all his wealth as charity voluntarily and does not intend it as Zakat, it does not suffice him. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i. The companions of Abu Hanifa said: It suffices him as a matter of juristic preference (istihsan). This is not correct, because he did not intend the obligation with it, so it does not suffice him, just as if he gave some of it in charity, and as if he prayed a hundred rak'ahs without intending the obligatory ones.

Section: If he has absent wealth and doubts its safety, it is permissible for him to pay the Zakat on it, and the intention of payment is valid, because the original state is its survival. If he intends: "If my wealth is safe, then this is its Zakat, and if it is destroyed, then it is a voluntary charity," and it turns out to be safe, his intention is valid, because he made the intention for the obligation sincere, then he appended the voluntary aspect to it; this is its ruling as if he had not said it, so if he does say it, it does no harm. If he says: "This is the Zakat of my absent or present wealth," it is valid, because specification is not a condition, as evidenced by the fact that if a person who has forty dinars pays half a dinar for it, it is valid, even though that accounts for twenty that are not specified. If he says: "This is the Zakat of my absent wealth or a voluntary charity," it does not suffice him, as mentioned by Abu Bakr, because he did not make the intention for the obligation sincere. It is similar to if he said: ...