If a child destroys something, his guardian is liable for what he destroyed, so why is it not also said:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In the issue of the zakah of a child's wealth, we say that if a child destroys something, a car, a crop, or something else.
The Shaykh: If what?
The questioner : If a child destroys something, the guardian or the one in charge of the child pays for what he destroyed. Should not the one in charge of the child also be obligated to pay the zakah from his wealth?
The Shaykh : Before anything else, I will tell you: establish the Throne, then write.
The questioner : And what is it?
The Shaykh : And it is established that if a child destroys something while he is not accountable, the child's guardian is obligated to compensate for what the child destroyed from the child's wealth?
Another questioner : ...
The Shaykh : The conversation is not for you.
The questioner : Naturally, the issue, O Shaykh, I do not know, it seems to me that it is a matter about which some scholars have issued rulings.
The Shaykh : I know, you get out of it.
The questioner : The one who reads in the major books finds that many scholars speak about it, that the guardian is liable.
The Shaykh : I do not discuss much or little, I discuss...
The questioner : I know what the request is.
The Shaykh : Do you know this?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah. If the consensus is established on what you say, then we do not go beyond it; because this issue is completely different from that one. This is compensation for the harm that the victim suffered, whereas there is no compensation there; there is zakah by which a person draws near to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), like prayer and other acts of worship. It is not said to be obligatory for the orphan, even through the guardian, except by explicit text. So if the issue on which it was analogized is actually agreed upon, and there is no disagreement in it, and this is what I think, then in that case, the consensus is what compels us to say what the consensus is upon. But we do not analogize zakah to it; because zakah is an act of worship. Yes, even if they say it is a financial act of worship, it differs from this aspect, for example, from prayer.
The Shaykh: If what?
The questioner : If a child destroys something, the guardian or the one in charge of the child pays for what he destroyed. Should not the one in charge of the child also be obligated to pay the zakah from his wealth?
The Shaykh : Before anything else, I will tell you: establish the Throne, then write.
The questioner : And what is it?
The Shaykh : And it is established that if a child destroys something while he is not accountable, the child's guardian is obligated to compensate for what the child destroyed from the child's wealth?
Another questioner : ...
The Shaykh : The conversation is not for you.
The questioner : Naturally, the issue, O Shaykh, I do not know, it seems to me that it is a matter about which some scholars have issued rulings.
The Shaykh : I know, you get out of it.
The questioner : The one who reads in the major books finds that many scholars speak about it, that the guardian is liable.
The Shaykh : I do not discuss much or little, I discuss...
The questioner : I know what the request is.
The Shaykh : Do you know this?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah. If the consensus is established on what you say, then we do not go beyond it; because this issue is completely different from that one. This is compensation for the harm that the victim suffered, whereas there is no compensation there; there is zakah by which a person draws near to Allah (Mighty and Majestic), like prayer and other acts of worship. It is not said to be obligatory for the orphan, even through the guardian, except by explicit text. So if the issue on which it was analogized is actually agreed upon, and there is no disagreement in it, and this is what I think, then in that case, the consensus is what compels us to say what the consensus is upon. But we do not analogize zakah to it; because zakah is an act of worship. Yes, even if they say it is a financial act of worship, it differs from this aspect, for example, from prayer.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.