Our Shaykh, some of our brothers raised two issues regarding this answer, one following the other. They said: If this debtor, who has this amount, lends to another person, and that person lends to a third, is zakah due on this money for all of them?

Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, some of our brothers raised two issues regarding this answer, one following the other. They said: If this debtor, who has this amount, lends to another person, and that person lends to a third, is zakah due on this money for all of them?

The Shaykh : What Allah willed, we have now entered into fantasy. We tell him, before you get into this imaginary sequence, stop here. Are you saying this is his money or not? Because this is a school of thought. Did you see? Did you see the one by which they nullified the texts of the Shari'ah? Therefore, this sequence is invalid, both in reality and in theory. We almost said that the first scenario might occur. We almost said it, but this is a hypothetical. Second and third, is this in the nature of humans? This is as Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in a very precise issue by which he removed a difficulty in a school of thought among some of the schools regarding the one who leaves the prayer. It is known that scholars have differed, both in the past and present, on the ruling of the one who leaves the prayer. Two schools agree that the one who leaves the prayer is killed. A third school says he is imprisoned and not killed. There may be other opinions, but they cannot be ranked among the followed schools, such as the saying of some that the one who leaves the prayer is pricked with a sword until what? He repents and prays. The important thing is that the three schools are the famous ones. Two schools agreed that the one who leaves the prayer is killed, and the third school says he is imprisoned and not killed. We return, and here is the point. In one of the two schools that agreed on killing the one who leaves the prayer, one says he is killed for disbelief, and the other says he is killed as a hudud punishment, not for disbelief. The fruit of this disagreement is that the one who says the one who leaves the prayer is killed for disbelief holds that this one who is killed is not prayed over and is not buried in the Muslim cemeteries. But the one who says he is killed as a hudud punishment, not for disbelief, holds that the status of this killed person is the status of the stoned adulterer, the intentional killer, and the like of those whom the Shari'ah ruled to be killed, but did not rule that they are apostates. For these, the hudud punishment of killing is carried out, but they are prayed over and buried in the Muslim cemeteries. This is the fruit of the disagreement between the two schools. We return to what we were discussing. The first school, which says he is killed for apostasy and disbelief, presented us with the image of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) representing the reality of this person. And here is the point in our previous issue. A man testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, sincerely from his heart. But we have not revealed his heart. He testifies this testimony, but the reality of his case is either that he is sincere from his heart, or that he is a hypocrite among the Muslims among whom he lives. If it is the latter, there is no doubt that this one is killed for disbelief and apostasy and is not buried in the Muslim cemeteries. But if it is the former, meaning we assume that he testifies that there is no god but Allah and believes in the implications of this testimony, including the issue of prayer. He believes that prayer is obligatory. Then when he is called to prayer, he prefers killing to returning to pray with what he professes to Allah. He tells you, this is an issue that cannot be imagined, because a person lives hoping and wishing to live, unless he has a belief. This person who prefers killing to prayer, his preference tells us what is in his heart: that this man does not believe in Allah and His Messenger. Otherwise, what would drive him to expose himself to killing and not pray, while he believes that this prayer is obligatory? So the saying that this one who leaves the prayer is killed as a hudud punishment, not for disbelief, is imaginary and has no value. Because if he were a believer, he would respond and pray. Likewise, we return to the original previous issue. The debtor borrowed in order to benefit from it. So what happened is that he did not benefit from it; he gave it to the second, and the second to the third, and so on. Here we tell him: Did that happen? We return to the Salafi school. Did that happen? We do not imagine that this invalid sequence would occur. Therefore, believe, O person, now in our correctness and your error, or in our error and your correctness. Stop at this point: Is it his money or not? And answer based on the previous explanation. When that happens, he will find himself, and we will find ourselves with him, that we are all in no need—neither we nor he—to enter into hypotheticals. Yes.