The Shaykh’s response to al-Ghazali’s claim that those who say zakah is not obligatory on trade goods have harmed Islam, as...

Al-Huwaini: Our Shaykh,The Shaykh : Muhammad al-Ghazali, in his book *The Prophetic Sunnah Between the People of Jurisprudence and the People of Hadith*...

The Shaykh: Do you consider him a Shaykh?
Al-Huwaini: ...

The Shaykh: After he did what he did... !! -laughs-
Al-Huwaini: Professor Muhammad al-Ghazali... -laughsThe Shaykh : and the students - he says that those who say that zakah is not obligatory on trade goods have inflicted severe harm on Islam with this ruling, for it is inconceivable that zakah should be imposed on a man who has a feddan of barley from which he barely gets a mentionable amount, while owners of millions, or even billions, are left alone and no zakah is taken from them. So what is your answer to this claim?

The Shaykh : My answer to this claim is from two angles. The first angle is that, as we have observed in all his slips and excesses that appeared in his latest book and in those before it, he relies on opinion in the legal rulings he issues and does not rely on transmitted evidence. The reason for this has been known for a long time: the people of opinion, because their merchandise was shoddy in the science of the Sunnah and the Prophetic hadith, resorted to compensating for the good they missed by relying on their opinions and ideas, which have no basis in the Book or the Sunnah. Any person can do what the people of opinion do, saying, "My opinion is such and such." Any person can do that. It is not the same as claiming that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said such and such, or that it is authentic from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said such and such. Because resorting to such a claim requires great effort and very extensive study, which is known among the hadith scholars through the study of the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) on one hand, and the principles of hadith science on the other, in addition to a very extensive study or reading of the hadiths narrated in the books of the Sunnah with their chains of narration. Without any doubt or hesitation, such a study takes up a person's entire life, no matter how much Allah (Mighty and Majestic) blesses him in it. And since this matter is arduous and difficult for many people to undertake, we found that they shortened the path and took the easiest route: without studying the science of hadith, the principles of hadith, the men of hadith, and the narrators of hadith, it is just opinion: "I see such and such, and I believe such and such," and nothing in that requires any notable effort from them. The righteous Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) noticed this matter, as is narrated from him that he said (may Allah be pleased with him): "If the people of desires argue with you using the Qur'an, argue with them using the Sunnah, for the Qur'an has many aspects." This is a reality. For example, we might take a general verse, and the Sunnah may have specified it. Then a person of desire comes and argues with a general verse out of his ignorance of what came in the Sunnah that specifies or restricts it, according to the texts that came in the Noble Qur'an. Therefore, we find that the people of opinion, both old and new, have made the path of the people of opinion easy for themselves and have found the method of the people of the Sunnah difficult, so they fell into many, and very many, legal violations, even in violating the Qur'an. Because we know, and all praise is due to Allah, we the people of the Sunnah know, that there is no way to interpret the Noble Qur'an correctly except by referring to the Sunnah. If the Muslim does not refer to the Sunnah in interpreting the Qur'an, there is no doubt that his fate will be the fate of any of the old sects that were called by the Salaf (the earliest generations) the people of desires: such as the Mu'tazilah (a rationalist theological sect), the Murji'ah (a sect that excluded deeds from faith), the Khawarij (an early sect that declared sinners disbelievers), and the like. One who turns away from the Sunnah in his understanding of the Qur'an must fall into some of this deviation, because he has ignored many verses in the Noble Qur'an that encourage the Muslim not to rely on his intellect in his understanding and study of the Noble Qur'an, but rather on the Sunnah of his Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). This Sunnah, to which the Noble Qur'an referred as the clarification, where He (Blessed and Exalted is He) said in the Qur'an: . This clarification is the Sunnah. If the student of knowledge does not refer to the Sunnah to understand the Noble Qur'an, there is no doubt that he will deviate greatly, very greatly, from the intent of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) in what He revealed to His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) of clear verses. Regarding the previous verse: . The logic of this man, who establishes the obligation of zakah on trade goods, requires him to establish many rulings and attribute them to Islam based on mere opinion. This is because the scholars, for example, agreed in general that zakah is not obligatory on much of what the earth grows, after they differed on some types. But they agreed, for example, that there is no zakah on vegetables. And in this era, we know that there are many lands planted with vegetables in various, multiple seasons of the year, yielding very large sums of money to their owner. Is there zakah on these vegetables? The answer, by the consensus of the scholars as far as we know, is that there is no zakah on them. In fact, the Sunnah specified the zakah obligatory on what the earth grows in four types, as came in the hadith of Mu'adh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) sent him to Yemen and said to him (peace and blessings be upon him): , and he (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned: . So, by this restriction, much of what the earth grows is excluded, for example, corn, and by analogy, vegetables as we mentioned earlier. It is true, as I also pointed out previously, that there are some matters on which the jurists differed, but vegetables that are not stored: at least the four schools of jurisprudence agreed that zakah is not obligatory on them. If the matter is taken by opinion, we find, for example, the following differences: whoever has two hundred dirhams of silver: zakah is obligatory on him. Whoever has twenty mithqals of gold: zakah is obligatory on him. Whoever has five camels: zakah is obligatory on them. Whoever has forty sheep: zakah is obligatory on him. Are the values of these things on which zakah is obligatory equal? The answer is no. Where is the value of the silver, if there were, for example, silver currency that people use today, compared to the value of gold? If we used opinion, we would say there is no justice here. Twenty mithqals, twenty dinars, equal today approximately ten Saudi or English gold pounds, while two hundred silver dirhams—I do not know exactly—but it does not equal even a small fraction of that value. If we judged by opinion, it would befit the religion of Islam what befell the Jews and the Christians of serious distortion in their religion. Therefore, it is obligatory for us to stand at the limits of the Shari'ah and not exceed them, due to the saying of the Exalted: . This man and many like him discuss legal rulings, especially when there is disagreement among the jurists; the stronger position for him is what his intellect and opinion rule. And now we say that this man and his like imagine that the Wise Lawgiver, when He did not impose zakah on trade goods and imposed it on five wasqs of wheat or barley, took the matter by His intellect. And he, without a doubt, no matter how arrogant he is, will not be able but to agree with the statement that his intellect is limited and deficient, and he cannot know the realities of legal rulings except by relying on the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), otherwise he would negate the wisdom of sending the messengers and revealing the books. And so, he used his intellect and said: How can it be reasonable to impose zakah on one who planted barley and reached the nisab (the minimum threshold for zakah), which is five wasqs, while a man has millions of trade goods, and yet we say: there is no zakah on trade goods. Our answer to this intellectual doubt is from two angles. The first angle: Suppose a merchant has trade goods worth one million riyals or pounds—it does not matter—and another person has one million in cash, not trade goods. We ask this rational man who judges by his intellect in the rulings of the Shari'ah: Which of the two is more beneficial to his community in his disposition of his wealth? Is it the first man who converted the million pounds or riyals into trade goods, moved the interests of people, and benefited dozens and hundreds of people? Is this more beneficial to society in material and economic terms than the one who locked up and hoarded the million pounds in the iron box? And yet, he pays the prescribed rate of two and a half percent. We now ask the scholars of economics: Which of the two is more beneficial to his community? Is it the one who hoarded his wealth and paid his zakah at two and a half percent, or the man who released his wealth, bought goods with it, and benefited his community? Now, this question is directed to the attendees, regardless of their knowledge and culture: Which of the two do you think is more beneficial?

The questioner : The first one.

The Shaykh : The first point is that this man is either misleading people or he is ignoring the facts. In my view, his case is like the riddles we used to play when we were small children, where one would surprise a classmate by asking, “Is a qintar of cotton heavier or a qintar of lead?” The other would say, “No, lead.” But the weight is limited to the qintar, and the matter is very obvious: the weight is the same, but there is a deception in the wording that lead is heavier than cotton. He did not notice that the ratio in terms of weight is the same! He did not notice that the ratio of benefit to the ummah (the Muslim community) is the opposite of what he imagines! When he asks, with indignation, how it is possible that zakah is imposed on one who has such-and-such amount of money, but not on one who has millions in commercial goods, this is the first answer. The second answer is: We say that it is not obligatory to pay zakah on commercial goods absolutely. Rather, we say what the Shari'ah evidence requires first, and then what the principle of ease in the Shari'ah requires second. When we say there is no zakah on commercial goods, we mean what is known in the four schools of jurisprudence: that every merchant must, at the end of every year, appraise his goods and then pay out from the total value as if that value were in his hand or in his box in cash; he must pay two and a half percent of every hundred. This is what we deny, and we say there is no evidence for it in the Shari'ah. However, this is countered by our statement that this rich man who converted his cash into goods that benefited his Muslim community has not escaped absolute zakah. I mean that every merchant must realize in himself the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: , and that he must purify himself from what his soul is inclined toward and what has been brought before him, as the Exalted said: . So he must purify it, and this is never achieved except by giving a portion of his wealth willingly. So this large merchant who has various types of goods must give from them what his soul is pleased with, as purification and cleansing for them. This is obligatory upon him by way of applying the general texts. As for those who say what we mentioned earlier about appraisal, this has no basis in the Shari'ah. Therefore, we applied the general texts, whose meanings are very clear in purifying the soul and cleansing it from stinginess and miserliness, and we turned away from those opinions that have no support in the Book of Allah or in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). If you know from the first answer that the merchant who converted his capital into goods is more beneficial to his ummah than the one who hoarded his money in his box, then it is obligatory for him to give from those goods what his soul is pleased with as zakah. At that point, we know the fallacy of this person. But I do not want to be unjust to him by calling it a fallacy, because a fallacy is usually done with knowledge of the one who falls into it. I believe he has no knowledge, but he judges by his opinion, and thus he falls into such contradictions.
I add to this explanation something else, which is a perfection of the speech. I say: The one who hoards his wealth and pays his zakah, offering it to the poor, his hand is the upper hand, and the hand of the taker is the lower hand, as came in the authentic hadith. As for the rich man who converted his wealth into goods, he and those who deal with him are in the same rank. There is no upper hand and there is no lower hand. So converting wealth into goods is more noble for the ummah than having an upper hand and a lower hand. And with this, my answer ends.

The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Huwaini: Regarding the rice harvest, the fedan in our area produces about two thousand kilos, two tons.

The Shaykh : Two thousand.
Al-Huwaini: Two thousand kilos. So the agricultural association forces the farmer to deliver, for example, one and a half tons at a low or cheap price. So if there is a fedan that produces two tons, he will give the association one and a half tons and keep half a ton for himself.