What is the ruling regarding the validity of Zakah if a defect (*'ayb*) is discovered in the asset upon which the full lunar year has passed before the Zakah is paid?
Chapter on Zakat on Sheep
Al-Mughni
Book of Zakat
Primary text
If a full lunar year has passed on the asset that constitutes the *nisab* (minimum threshold for Zakah), Zakah becomes obligatory. If a defect is found prior to the discharge of the Zakah obligation, the owner has the right to return the asset, irrespective of whether Zakah is considered a right tied to the asset itself or to one's personal liability. This is because Zakah is not an obligation concerning the physical possession in the sense of the poor acquiring a physical share of the item, but rather a right attached to it, similar to the liability for damages (*arsh*) attached to the perpetrator of harm. Therefore, the *nisab* is returned, and the owner must discharge the Zakah liability from other wealth. If Zakah has already been paid using the defective asset, the subsequent right to return the asset hinges upon whether a defect appearing later at the buyer's possession allows for a return, and also upon the permissibility of splitting the transaction.
Supporting text
If the owner pays the Zakah from the asset and then wishes to return it, the ruling depends on whether the return of the item after a subsequent defect appears is permitted, and whether the splitting of the transaction is valid; if the latter is allowed, the return here is also permitted. If the return is executed, the owner must provide compensation for the animal used for Zakah, valued proportionally based on the sale price. The buyer's affirmation regarding its value, accompanied by an oath, is accepted if there is no other evidence, because the asset perished in the seller's possession, making him more knowledgeable of its value, and because the value is claimed against him, placing him in the position of the guarantor. There is an opposing view stating the seller's affirmation is preferred because he is the one ultimately liable for returning the purchase price. The former view is stronger because the buyer is the one primarily liable for the price of the animal used for Zakah. If Zakah is paid from wealth other than the stipulated asset, the right to return the asset is universally upheld.