Clarifying the Statement on the Issue of Zakah in Trade Goods

The questioner : ... regarding the obligation of zakah in trade goods, and the other view that it is not permissible to obligate zakah generally without a lunar year or a specific condition, and the view of the majority that zakah is obligatory with a lunar year and a specific condition. The question: We want to clarify this issue in light of the Book and the Sunnah and the understanding of the righteous Salaf of this issue; so that we may emerge with our hearts certain of this correct statement?

The Shaykh: Indeed, praise is to Allah, we praise Him and seek His help and seek His forgiveness, and we seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our souls and from the bad of our deeds. Whom Allah guides, there is no one who can mislead him, and whom He misleads, there is no one who can guide him. And I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. As for what follows:
It is known to all scholars without exception that the original ruling regarding wealth, as it is regarding blood and private parts, is prohibition, and that it is not permissible to obligate any of these three things except by a text from the Book of Allah or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), or by a certain consensus of the scholars of the Ummah. In what I have known and looked into and come upon, I did not find evidence from these three sources for what most of the scholars, both early and late jurists, held regarding the obligation of zakah on trade goods with the two conditions mentioned earlier in your question; namely, that it reaches the nisab first, and then that a lunar year passes over it secondly. And a third thing they say is that if these two conditions are realized in some of the trade goods, it is necessary to appraise these goods at the end of every year after the lunar year has passed, and after the appraisal, two and a half percent is extracted from the estimated value, as is the case with the zakah of the two types of currency. We did not find this level of detail explicitly stated, as we mentioned earlier, in the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus of the Ummah. If the original ruling is as we mentioned, then our position is one of prohibition from imposing zakah on trade wealth in a manner and with a restriction for which no mention has come in any of those sources. But it is not hidden from every researcher or scholar that there are general texts that command the extraction of zakah and the purification of souls by extracting zakah, general texts. Then there are specific texts that clarified what are the things upon which zakah is obligatory, and what are ... that are obligatory; whether they relate to the two types of currency as mentioned earlier, or relate to some domestic animals like sheep, cattle, and camels, or relate to some fruits and the like.
There are texts that relate to clarifying what is obligatory for these types. So we say: We adhere to these texts and we impose them and do not add to them by using reasoning or analogy; because there is something that prevents that; namely, that original ruling which I mentioned at the beginning of this speech. Especially since some hadiths have come that confirm this original ruling, such as the hadith of Mu'adh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent him to Yemen as a caller, a bringer of good news, and a teacher; he said to him (peace and blessings be upon him): He mentioned wheat, barley, dates, and raisins. So his statement: is a confirmation of that rule that the original ruling regarding wealth is prohibition and restriction except for what has come in a text. And added to this are other hadiths that explicitly state, for example, in the hadith agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim, namely his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): ... the hadith until his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): , or as he said (peace be upon him), and the hadith is in "the two Sahihs".
Therefore, when some merchants from Sham came to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), and they had horses for sale for trade, they said to him: O Commander of the Faithful, take its zakah from us. He said (may Allah be pleased with him): "My two predecessors before me did not do that." They persisted and he persisted, and 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) was in the assembly, so he said: "O Commander of the Faithful, take it from them as a charity from the charities." So he took it and their hearts were pleased. This is evidence that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ... and the hadith is in "Musnad al-Imam Ahmad", in which it is clarified that there is no zakah on horses that are raised and sold for the purpose of trading; that is: as he (peace be upon him) imposed zakah on the other animals mentioned earlier like sheep, cattle, and camels.
Up to here ends my explanation in answer to that question. But many of the contemporary jurists, if I do not say those who have studied jurisprudence, think that ... because most of these contemporaries have not studied jurisprudence in the Book of Allah or in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), but rather, if they have studied jurisprudence, they have studied it by what they read in the traditional, school-based fiqh books that impose on their reader, and on the one who studies with them, to adhere to them without knowing the evidence of their authors. Better than these are those who study jurisprudence according to the four schools, which is what is called today "comparative fiqh," where he reads the statement of this school and that school, and lives in the differences, then he transfers the opinion of each school accompanied by the evidence that the school mentions, without studying these evidence in light of the scientific principles of the principles of hadith or the principles of jurisprudence. So he, for example, does not apply a principle from the principles of jurisprudence like general and specific, absolute and restricted, and the like of what he may have read in the science of principles and studied, and perhaps he killed himself with theoretical research, but he did not apply it practically. Likewise, what relates to the other principle; namely, the principle of the science of hadith and its principles. So he, for example, when he transfers the evidence of each opinion or school, does not conduct the scientific verification on them and say: this hadith is authentic, this is good, this is weak, and the like. And what they fall into today is that due to the ease of what they go to and fall into, they consider what they call the public benefit, and that suffices them from exerting themselves and applying the scientific principles mentioned earlier. Then if they consider the public benefit, what do they consider; the benefit of the poor or the benefit of the rich or the two benefits related to each of the two groups?! It is only one benefit. As for the Wise Lawgiver, He saw the benefit of both groups, and this is the difference between the ruling of the Wise Lawgiver and the view of the viewers and observers from the people of opinion. This is what I also want to draw attention to.
And another thing—and I hope it is the last: these observers and viewers, and those who research the benefit of the poor and the needy; these look at the issue we are speaking about, they look at it with one eye, and here is the explanation:
They say: It is not in the interest of the poor and the needy, nor does the wisdom of the Most Wise of the Wise indicate that it is so, that a man who has millions in the value of trade goods should not have zakah imposed on them, for in that is the deprivation of the poor and the needy from obtaining their known right mentioned in the general statement of the Exalted: , and my answer to this is from two sides, and perhaps we will finish explaining them and end the speech on this issue, to receive what may come to us of difficulties or doubts or objections:
The first answer is that we adhere to the general principle mentioned at the beginning of the discussion. We say: It is obligatory for these wealthy people who have trade goods to pay zakah on them to achieve the purpose for which zakah was legislated in all its types and forms, as our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) indicated in the Noble Qur'an by saying: . Therefore, every wealthy person who has trade goods must purify himself from what has been brought to his soul, which is stinginess, as He (Mighty and Majestic) said: . He must purify himself from this stinginess by giving what his soul is pleased to give as obligatory zakah, so that he purifies himself from the filth of miserliness and stinginess. This is the first answer. Let no one understand that there is absolutely no zakah on the wealthy who have trade goods, because our discussion is that there is no *regulated* zakah on them, as explained at the beginning of the discussion. As for absolute zakah, it is necessary, as He (Exalted is He) said: . This right has an absolute aspect, which applies in its generality, and a restricted aspect, as explained in the Sunnah and in the books of jurisprudence, with disagreement among scholars on some branches.
As for the other matter: I say, and reality confirms this, that among the wisdom of the Most Wise of Judges is that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) legislated a specific zakah on hoarded wealth, with a known threshold, as long as this wealth remains hoarded. He did not legisulate such a zakah on wealth that was hoarded and then turned into trade goods. In this lies profound wisdom, because the greatest benefit for the poor and the needy, and indeed for the Muslim community as a whole, is realized by not imposing this regulated zakah on these assets that are offered for trade. The evidence for this is that when hoarded wealth turns into trade, it mobilizes these assets and puts the poor and needy to work. Thus, their benefit is first greater than the percentage imposed on hoarded gold or silver. Then it becomes—and may Allah have mercy on you—then it becomes purer and more noble for them, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) indicated in the well-known hadith: , and as he said in the well-known hadith: . Therefore, the transformation of hoarded wealth into trade goods is more beneficial for the poor and more noble for them, because they receive it through the labor of their hands.
This is what I have, and now we listen to what you have.