Is the scholarly disagreement regarding the zakah of jewelry a valid excuse for not paying the zakah of past years?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Abu Ishaq: Is not the disagreement regarding the zakah of jewelry a valid excuse for not paying the zakah of past years, if it is difficult for him to pay the annual zakahs?
The Shaykh : No, set aside the cause; is it difficult for him, or is the issue one of scholarly disagreement? Let us take one matter after the other. Abu Ishaq: Fine, let us assume it is a matter of scholarly disagreement.
The Shaykh : Good. I do not know that a matter of scholarly disagreement weakens the ruling of the Shari'ah in a specific issue. It is sufficient for him that if he contradicted the truth or the Shari'ah for some reason, he not be held accountable for this contradiction. However, that he should validate his position after the correct ruling has become clear to him is a different matter.
Abu Ishaq: But he is a muqallid, meaning he did not adopt the standard of the obligation of zakah on jewelry based on being one hundred percent convinced, but rather someone told him that it is not obligatory, so the ruling did not become clear to him and he did not believe it.
The Shaykh : Also, this is another matter: do you think his ruling would differ if that did not become clear to him?
Abu Ishaq: If it becomes clear to him, he acts upon it.
The Shaykh : The answer is also that I do not know of a difference between the mujtahid, the follower, and the muqallid, in that an issue with a single ruling and a single aspect does not have its ruling differ based on the difference in how the issue was received. The mujtahid received it through his own ijtihad, the follower received it through the ijtihad of another, and the muqallid received it through taqlid. So the ruling remains as it was issued by the mujtahid. If it is obligatory for the mujtahid to hasten to make up what he missed, it is obligatory for the follower, and likewise obligatory for the muqallid. But the reality is that I am now recalling, or this classification of the issue, that the zakah of jewelry is not obligatory, and then the opposite became clear to him, that it is obligatory for him, so it became obligatory for him to pay it. This returns to your previous question. Now I am correcting my position and saying it is not obligatory, because the original position is that it is not obligatory for the mujtahid, so the ruling for the follower is the same, and the ruling for the muqallid is the same. So the lid fit the pot, it matched it, and it embraced it.
He laughs, and Abu Ishaq likewise.The Shaykh .
The Shaykh : No, set aside the cause; is it difficult for him, or is the issue one of scholarly disagreement? Let us take one matter after the other. Abu Ishaq: Fine, let us assume it is a matter of scholarly disagreement.
The Shaykh : Good. I do not know that a matter of scholarly disagreement weakens the ruling of the Shari'ah in a specific issue. It is sufficient for him that if he contradicted the truth or the Shari'ah for some reason, he not be held accountable for this contradiction. However, that he should validate his position after the correct ruling has become clear to him is a different matter.
Abu Ishaq: But he is a muqallid, meaning he did not adopt the standard of the obligation of zakah on jewelry based on being one hundred percent convinced, but rather someone told him that it is not obligatory, so the ruling did not become clear to him and he did not believe it.
The Shaykh : Also, this is another matter: do you think his ruling would differ if that did not become clear to him?
Abu Ishaq: If it becomes clear to him, he acts upon it.
The Shaykh : The answer is also that I do not know of a difference between the mujtahid, the follower, and the muqallid, in that an issue with a single ruling and a single aspect does not have its ruling differ based on the difference in how the issue was received. The mujtahid received it through his own ijtihad, the follower received it through the ijtihad of another, and the muqallid received it through taqlid. So the ruling remains as it was issued by the mujtahid. If it is obligatory for the mujtahid to hasten to make up what he missed, it is obligatory for the follower, and likewise obligatory for the muqallid. But the reality is that I am now recalling, or this classification of the issue, that the zakah of jewelry is not obligatory, and then the opposite became clear to him, that it is obligatory for him, so it became obligatory for him to pay it. This returns to your previous question. Now I am correcting my position and saying it is not obligatory, because the original position is that it is not obligatory for the mujtahid, so the ruling for the follower is the same, and the ruling for the muqallid is the same. So the lid fit the pot, it matched it, and it embraced it.
He laughs, and Abu Ishaq likewise.The Shaykh .
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.