What are the proofs of those who hold that zakah is due on trade goods?

The questioner : Regarding those who see zakah in trade goods, they cite a report from 'Umar in which he said... charity. What are the justifications or proofs that led the heads of the schools of jurisprudence and some of those who issue fatwas on trade goods to permit this? Do they have a report they can rely on?

The Shaykh : The report from 'Umar is transmitted, and it is mentioned by Sayyid Sabiq and others. However, when we return to "Takhseer al-Habir" or look into the chain of this report, which is found in "Musnad al-Imam al-Shafi'i" or in the book "Al-Umm" by Imam al-Shafi'i, we find in it an unknown man who is not relied upon by the scholars of hadith. I think his name is either Humas or Abu Humas; he is unknown, so the report is not established from 'Umar. Nevertheless, there is a hadith in "Sunan Abu Dawud" from the hadith of Samurah ibn Jundub, who said, "We used to pay zakah in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on what we kept for sale." This, too, has an unknown narrator in its chain, or more than one unknown narrator. So there is nothing there, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, that obligates or makes it obligatory for the rich to pay zakah on trade goods. Then they have other arguments that are correct in terms of their authenticity but not correct in terms of their implications. For example, they might say that there are general texts, such as the verse mentioned earlier: , and these are wealths from which zakah should be taken. We say: These general texts by which they argue, if taken in their generality, would require what no scholar in the world, neither old nor new, would say. For example, the generality would require paying zakah on vegetables... This is wealth, specifically in the present time, meaning the large farmer who has abundant lands and plentiful water, meaning that every month, not every season, his land yields thousands upon thousands, yet there is no zakah on it by consensus, even though it is wealth. Likewise, there are farms that grow a type of plant, such as sugarcane, for example, and this yields a great deal of wealth in some countries like Egypt and others. He has a long, wide field all planted with sugarcane, so when he harvests, thousands upon thousands of dirhams or dinars accumulate for him, yet there is no zakah on it. So who can then argue with the generality of His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): ? Nevertheless, some scholars note that this is a partitive phrase, so the meaning could be "take from some of their wealth," and this is what the Sunnah clarified, as we mentioned earlier in the hadith of Mu'adh: . So its meaning is that there are things where opinion may rule that zakah is obligatory on them, and Mu'adh ibn Jabal may have gone to that when he exercised independent legal reasoning without having an explicit text. So he said to him beforehand: Do not take from the produce of their lands except from these four types.
In summary: The majority who hold that trade goods are subject to obligatory zakah:
First: They do not have an explicit text on the matter.
Second: They have general texts, and they are the first to contradict them.
Third and finally: The Shari'ah did not specify how these trade goods are to be treated. So their claim that they are appraised and their zakah is paid out is merely an opinion. We mentioned to you earlier a report and a hadith; if they were authentic, the door would have opened to saying that taking zakah from trade goods is obligatory. But something important remains ambiguous there: how is zakah taken from these trade goods? One might say, "You have wheat, sorry, rice, you have sugar, you look at this type, you have, for example, anything else, you look at its kind." So where did the appraisal come from? This is a pure opinion, with no support, not even by a weak report. In this matter, we became reassured after studying the contents of the lengthy books, and then we presented the issue to the scrutiny of economic research. We found that the Shari'ah, when it did not obligate the rich to pay zakah on trade goods and real estate, actually achieved more benefit for the poor than it achieves for them in what it obligated on the rich who pay out their wealth at the known rate of two and a half percent.