[The Ruling on Zakāh When It Is Taken by Force]

Answer: The obligation is to give zakāh to those whom Allah has commanded it be given to—namely, just rulers. If such rulers do not exist, the owner is obliged to distribute it to its eligible recipients, or to some of them.
If someone with no right to take zakāh comes—men of might, such as the shaykhs the questioner mentioned—then the owner of the wealth must evade them as much as he can, and turn them back with the least possible portion of the zakāh, keeping the rest and placing it in its proper channels.
If he does so, then what I hold is that he is not required to pay in place of what the shaykh took. This can be analyzed within the school’s framework: the scholars said that a depositary and the like are not liable for what is overcome by irresistible force—such as thieves and overpowering oppressors—and they only held them liable if there was misconduct or negligence.
Among what constitutes misconduct or negligence with them is that a depositary, common carrier, or the like could have avoided the thieves with the deposit, or hidden it, but did not; in a case like that, they are liable due to negligence in safeguarding.
Likewise with zakāh: if the owner could have avoided the one taking it, or could have hidden it, but did not—he is liable; but if he could not, then there is no liability upon him.
If it is said: What the thieves took does not become determined as zakāh.
We say: The one who takes zakāh by force takes it as zakāh, and the giver hands it over as zakāh. If that is the case, then what was taken is the zakāh.
Source : Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.1