Discussion on hoarding wealth while paying zakah.

The Shaykh : The second point is that many people fall into a strange state of heedlessness. This heedlessness becomes apparent when we raise the following question: There is no doubt that it is permissible for a wealthy person to confine or hoard his wealth in gold and silver in an iron safe and not put it in the market for trade, provided that he pays the zakah on this wealth every year. I think this is known to everyone. So we ask: If a person does this, is he to be held accountable if he pays the zakah on his wealth every year? The answer is no. Consider another merchant who has not a single dirham or dinar in his safe; all of it is put into trade. Let us assume that the wealth of both merchants is equal in quantity. For example, the first one’s capital is one million, and the second one’s capital is one million. The first one’s million is hoarded in the safe, and every year it yields two and a half percent. The second one’s million is put in the market in any of the commodities of trade. Now the question arises: Which of these two wealthy men is more beneficial to the poor, the first or the second?
Now tell us what you think, and many of you are merchants, while I am not a merchant. Which man is more beneficial? Do you have any doubt about this? So when someone assumes that when we say that the one whose wealth is converted into trade commodities has harmed the poor, he is mistaken. If it is true that he has harmed the poor, it is the first man who has harmed them by holding back and hoarding his wealth. But the Lawgiver said to him: As long as you pay the zakah, there is no sin upon you. So how can it be said that this one has harmed the poor? If one of the two types has harmed them more, it is the first man.
We say finally: The second man is the one who benefits the poor. Because when he puts his capital to work, there is activity in the country, and there is work for the poor. If we assume that all the wealthy are of the first type, unemployment would strike the workers, the poor, and the needy. And the opposite is exactly the opposite. So we must now note something very important: Allah (Mighty and Majestic), when He did not impose zakah on trade commodities, and on the contrary, imposed zakah on hoarded wealth, is as if our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) is saying to the wealthy: Put your wealth into people’s hands and engage in it in trade commodities. That is better for people than hoarding it in your safes or your treasures.
So here is a profound wisdom: Allah (Mighty and Majestic), when we do not find in the Book of Allah or in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) a text that obliges this wealthy man who has put his capital in the market to conduct an inventory and appraise these vast assets every year, He has been lenient with him in this leniency because he deserves it, because he is more beneficial in this work to the poor than that wealthy man who hoarded his wealth. And yet, Allah has been lenient with him as long as he pays two and a half percent from these accumulated, hoarded assets.
In summary, what we understand from this topic is that both the transmitted texts and reason agree at the same time that there is no zakah on trade commodities, and that the wise Lawgiver’s lifting of zakah from them is for the benefit of the poor, because it helps the wealthy person not to hoard wealth. If he hoards it, the poor benefit less from it. On the other hand, it helps the wealthy person to put his wealth in the market, so the poor benefit more from it than they would from the wealth itself. This is what I have on this issue.