What are the evidences of those who say that zakah is due on trade goods?

The questioner : Regarding those who hold that zakah is due on trade goods, they cite a report, or a statement from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, saying: ... charity. What are the justifications or the evidences that led some of the scholars of the schools of jurisprudence to issue rulings on the zakah of trade goods? In other words, do they have a report they can rely on?

The Shaykh : The report from 'Umar is transmitted; it is mentioned by Sayyid Sabiq and others. However, when we return to *Takhseer al-Habir* or to 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 a man who is unknown and whose testimony is not accepted 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 narration of Samurah ibn Jundub, who said: "We used to pay zakah in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) from what we kept for sale." This, too, has obscurity in its chain, or more than obscurity. So there is nothing there, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, that obligates or makes it obligatory for the rich person 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: . These are wealths, so zakah should be taken from them.
We say: These general texts that they cite as evidence, if one were to apply their generality, would require what no scholar in the world, neither past nor present, holds. For example, the generality would require paying zakah on vegetables... specifically, in the present time, the large farmer who has abundant land and plentiful water; meaning, 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. This yields a great deal of wealth in some countries, such as Egypt and others. He has a long, wide field all planted with sugarcane. When it is harvested, 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 partitive. It is possible that the meaning is: "Take from some of their wealth." This is what the Sunnah changed, 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 from them, and Mu'adh ibn Jabal might 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 land except from these four types."
In summary: The majority who hold that trade goods are subject to zakah, first, 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 a mere opinion. We mentioned to you earlier a report and a hadith; if they were authentic, the door would have opened to saying that it is obligatory to take zakah from trade goods. But there remains an important point that is obscure: How is zakah taken from these trade goods? One might say: You have wheat, excuse me, rice; you have sugar; you look at this type, you have—say—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. For this reason, we were reassured after studying the issue from... the lengthy books, and then presenting the issue to the scrutiny of economic research, and we found that the Shari'ah, when it did not obligate the rich to pay zakah on trade goods and real estate, achieved more benefit for the poor than what it achieves for them in what it obligated on the rich who pay out their wealth from the known rate of two and a half percent.