What is the explanation of the hadith (that a funeral procession passed in front of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and he said (peace and blessings be upon him): "Did he leave behind anything?") They said: "A dirham." He said:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: O Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: So, if someone is contributing to his brothers specifically in the company... The question is, since the day you came to us, we have not asked you about two hadiths: that a funeral procession passed in front of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said (peace and blessings be upon him):. They said: "A dirham." He said: , and another hadith: They said: "Two dirhams." He said: . In fact, I have not come across an interpretation of this hadith, so may Allah reward you with good, even if you interpret it for me so that I may be on clear understanding.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The student: Here, interpretation means explanation, not denial of the divine attributes.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, yes.
The questioner : No, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The student: So that it does not occur to you.
The Shaykh: "He will be branded with it" means either that his earnings were not lawful, or that he had a debt he did not repay and left this without paying it off, or else the hadith cannot be understood as it first comes to mind, because we always say, and always, that texts must be gathered and interpreted in light of gathering. It is known in the Shari'ah with certainty and conviction that saving money, if zakah is paid from it, then the money from which its zakah is paid and the rights of people are paid out is not hoarded wealth. On the contrary, if one hoards money and does not pay its due to people, it is hoarded wealth with which he will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. So when such a hadith comes, it is not permissible to understand it merely because he left two dirhams, or even two dinars, that he will be branded with it. But the branding happens because of his neglect in one of the ways of neglecting this money, such as earning it through an un-Islamic means, or as we said earlier, not paying what he owes in rights and debts. And now, inspired by my previous words, it may be that he did not pay the zakah on what he saved without paying the zakah on his wealth. So one must consider one of these possibilities so that it is not understood in a way that contradicts the verses and hadiths, the sum of which indicates that hoarding money is permissible, but with the condition of what? Paying its due. So if the hoarded money has its zakah paid, it is not hoarded wealth, and the opposite is the opposite. So this person who died and left a dinar or two dinars, or a dirham or two dirhams, and he said "he will be branded" or "branded with it," in truth, some of the earlier ascetics understood from it that a person is not allowed to save even a dirham. This contradicts the definitive texts that zakah is only obligatory on money with two conditions: that it reaches the nisab and that a lunar year passes over it. What does it mean if the money does not require zakah because it did not reach the nisab, or it reached the nisab but a lunar year did not pass over it? How do we reconcile this definitive Shari'ah ruling with this where he said "branded with it" or "branded"? So we must deduce from our minds that he violated the Shari'ah in some way. What is it? It is not necessary for us to know it, do you see how? But we must know the principle, and we mentioned the principle earlier.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And beware of that.
The questioner: One-third, O our Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The one who wants to spend said.
The Shaykh: What is it?
The questioner: The hadith of Sa'd.
The Shaykh: What is in it? What is in it?
The questioner: It means this is evidence that he keeps the money after he has paid the right of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The Shaykh: I do not know. We have referred to definitive evidence in this, yes.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: So, if someone is contributing to his brothers specifically in the company... The question is, since the day you came to us, we have not asked you about two hadiths: that a funeral procession passed in front of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said (peace and blessings be upon him):
Did he leave behind anything?
هل ترك شيئًا ؟He will be branded with it
كيتانHe will be branded with it
كيتانThe Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The student: Here, interpretation means explanation, not denial of the divine attributes.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, yes.
The questioner : No, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The student: So that it does not occur to you.
The Shaykh: "He will be branded with it" means either that his earnings were not lawful, or that he had a debt he did not repay and left this without paying it off, or else the hadith cannot be understood as it first comes to mind, because we always say, and always, that texts must be gathered and interpreted in light of gathering. It is known in the Shari'ah with certainty and conviction that saving money, if zakah is paid from it, then the money from which its zakah is paid and the rights of people are paid out is not hoarded wealth. On the contrary, if one hoards money and does not pay its due to people, it is hoarded wealth with which he will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. So when such a hadith comes, it is not permissible to understand it merely because he left two dirhams, or even two dinars, that he will be branded with it. But the branding happens because of his neglect in one of the ways of neglecting this money, such as earning it through an un-Islamic means, or as we said earlier, not paying what he owes in rights and debts. And now, inspired by my previous words, it may be that he did not pay the zakah on what he saved without paying the zakah on his wealth. So one must consider one of these possibilities so that it is not understood in a way that contradicts the verses and hadiths, the sum of which indicates that hoarding money is permissible, but with the condition of what? Paying its due. So if the hoarded money has its zakah paid, it is not hoarded wealth, and the opposite is the opposite. So this person who died and left a dinar or two dinars, or a dirham or two dirhams, and he said "he will be branded" or "branded with it," in truth, some of the earlier ascetics understood from it that a person is not allowed to save even a dirham. This contradicts the definitive texts that zakah is only obligatory on money with two conditions: that it reaches the nisab and that a lunar year passes over it. What does it mean if the money does not require zakah because it did not reach the nisab, or it reached the nisab but a lunar year did not pass over it? How do we reconcile this definitive Shari'ah ruling with this where he said "branded with it" or "branded"? So we must deduce from our minds that he violated the Shari'ah in some way. What is it? It is not necessary for us to know it, do you see how? But we must know the principle, and we mentioned the principle earlier.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And beware of that.
The questioner: One-third, O our Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The one who wants to spend said
One-third, and one-third is a lot.
الثلث ، والثلث كثيرThe Shaykh: What is it?
The questioner: The hadith of Sa'd.
The Shaykh: What is in it? What is in it?
The questioner: It means this is evidence that he keeps the money after he has paid the right of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The Shaykh: I do not know. We have referred to definitive evidence in this, yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.