What is subject to zakah, its amount, and its destinations.

The Shaykh : And zakah is obligatory in wealth that generally grows, though it may not be obligatory in growing wealth, and it is obligatory in stagnant wealth according to what has come in the texts. For example, among what is subject to zakah is gold and silver in any state they are in. There is zakah in gold and silver in all cases, whether they are currency like dinars and dirhams, or jewelry, or pieces of gold or pieces of silver. The important thing is that zakah is obligatory in gold and silver in all cases. As for other precious metals, there is no zakah in them unless they are for trade. And among what is subject to zakah are trade goods, meaning the wealth that a person prepares for trade and earning. Any type of wealth, no matter what type, if its owner intends it for earning, it is trade goods. This includes real estate, lands, cars, tractors, watches, fabrics, and vessels. Anything you prepare for trade has zakah in it. The reason for this is: what is the purpose of trade? Is the purpose the item itself or its value and its profit? The latter, without doubt. For this reason, a person buys an item in the morning and sells it in the evening if he finds a profit, unlike the thing a person acquired for himself, like his house or his real estate that he rents out. He wants these to remain; he does not want to sell them. Therefore, we say that trade goods are subject to obligatory zakah in any wealth, in all wealth. Any type of wealth a person intends for trade is trade goods. So what is the amount of zakah in gold, silver, and trade goods? The amount of zakah is one-quarter of a tenth. One-quarter of a tenth means one out of forty, on the condition that it reaches the nisab. The nisab of gold is twenty mithqals. The nisab of silver is one hundred and forty mithqals. The nisab of gold in the current standards is eighty-five grams, and the nisab of silver is five hundred and ninety-five grams. What is less than that has no zakah. And gold is not combined with silver to complete the nisab. This means if a person has half a nisab of gold and half a nisab of silver, we do not complete one with the other. We say there is no zakah on you because you do not own a nisab of gold nor a nisab of silver. So there is no zakah on you. Some scholars said that gold is combined with silver to complete the nisab. So if he has half a nisab of gold and half a nisab of silver, zakah becomes obligatory on him. But this opinion is the weaker position and is not correct, because just as barley is not combined with wheat to complete the nisab, gold is not combined with silver to complete the nisab. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) distinguished between them, saying: So, if a person has, for example, a nisab of gold and half a nisab of silver, is zakah obligatory on him? Pay attention: a nisab of gold and half a nisab of silver. He is
The student: ...

The Shaykh : obligated to pay zakah on the gold, and he is not obligated to pay zakah on the silver. As for the value of trade goods, it is combined with them because the intended thing in trade goods is their value. For example, if a person has trade goods equal to half a nisab of silver and he has half a nisab of pure silver, is zakah obligatory on him? Do you understand the question? Half a nisab of trade goods and half a nisab of silver. He is obligated to pay zakah. Why? Because the intended thing in trade goods is their value, not their physical form; a person does not want the physical form. Now, remaining from the zakatable wealth are debts. Debts are divided into two categories: debts with a wealthy person who pays readily, and debts with—three categories—debts with a wealthy person who delays, and debts with a poor person.
Debts are divided into three categories: debts with a wealthy person who pays readily, if you say "give me my right," he says "please, take it." Debts with a wealthy person but who delays; every time you come to him, he says "tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow." The third: with a poor person. As for debts with a wealthy person who pays readily, there is zakah in them and no doubt, because they are like they are in your box, as long as the only thing between you and them is saying "O so-and-so, give me my right." They are like what is in your box; the only thing between you and them is opening the box and taking your dirhams. Zakah is obligatory in them. But is it obligatory to pay their zakah with the debtor's wealth, or when he receives it, does he pay zakah for the time that has passed? The scholars say you are in a dispensation. If you wish, combine it with your wealth and pay its zakah with your wealth. If you wish, delay it until you receive it, then pay zakah on it for the time that has passed.
The second category: debts on a wealthy person who delays. The second category is debts on a wealthy person who delays, meaning he is wealthy, his money is abundant, he is able to pay, but he delays. This has a detail. If you cannot demand it from him, it is like that of a poor person. If you can demand it from him, it is like that of a wealthy person who pays readily. Do you understand? Now, if the money you have is with an emir whom you cannot demand from, and he is wealthy, if the debt you have is with an emir whom you cannot demand from, and he is wealthy, he is wealthy without doubt in the majority of cases, then this is like what is on a poor person, because you cannot benefit from your money. Clear? Or with a wicked person whom you fear that if you repeat the request, he will harm you in your family, or in your house, or in your honor, or something similar. Then this is also like the debt on a poor person, because you cannot demand it. But if you can demand it, and he is a wealthy person who delays, but you can demand it, you take him to the judge and he gives you your right, then zakah is obligatory in it. Zakah is obligatory in it because you are able to demand it and for him to give you your right. Then, if you wish, pay its zakah with your wealth, and if you wish, delay it until you receive it and pay its zakah for the time that has passed.
The third category: the one whose debt is on a poor person. There is no zakah in this. Why? Because you cannot demand it from him or ask for it. Even saying "give me my right" is forbidden for you, and he is poor. By the saying of Allah the Exalted: This has no zakah because it is not in your wealth, nor in the ruling of your wealth. You cannot benefit from it at all. You are prohibited from this by the Shari'ah. Now, if you receive it, do you pay zakah for the time that has passed, or not? We say you do not pay zakah for the time that has passed, because everything that has passed has no zakah at all. But do you pay zakah for one year, the year of receipt, or do you wait until the lunar year is completed? There is scholarly disagreement among the scholars. Some said: start a new lunar year with it, and wait. When the lunar year is completed, pay its zakah. And some said: no, pay its zakah now, zakah for one year, then continue paying its zakah in the future if it remains with you. This opinion is more cautious and better. For example, if a person has ten thousand in the debt of a poor person, then he receives it after ten years, does he pay zakah for ten years? No, he pays zakah for one year. He pays the zakah of ten thousand now when he receives it. Then, if it remains with him until a year is completed, he pays its zakah. And if he spends it, it is gone. And some scholars say: no, it is not obligatory for him to pay the zakah of this wealth. Wait until a year is completed with you, then pay its zakah. But the first opinion is more cautious, and if it is more cautious, then taking the precaution is preferable.
Then, in reality, zakah, a person should feel that it is not a loss. My intention is that it is not a burden, but it is a gain. Every person will be in the shade of his charity on the Day of Resurrection. And if you spend something from your wealth, Allah has promised to replace it for you. Either Allah replaces for you something tangible, so the hundred becomes two hundred, or Allah replaces for you something intangible, but He blesses you in this wealth and protects it from calamities. The important thing is that spending for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is all good. As for the zakah of livestock and the zakah of grains, it appears that the time is short, so we leave the discussion of them. And I think most of you do not have livestock or orchards.
Regarding the important thing also: if zakah becomes obligatory, whom do we give it to? Do we give it to whom we wish? No, Allah the Exalted explained its destinations Himself, (Exalted and Majestic is He), and He said: So, whoever pays zakah to other than those entitled to it, it does not suffice for him, and his conscience is not cleared by it, like the one who prays before the time; his prayer does not suffice him. The poor and the needy are given for their need. The criterion for this, as stated by the jurists, is that a person does not have what suffices him and his family for a year. That a person does not have what suffices him and his family for a year. For example, if we estimate that this poor man, or this man, spends twelve thousand a year, one thousand riyals every month, and he has six thousand, is he poor? Yes, he is poor. We give him only six thousand so that he has what suffices him and his family for a year.
A man has a salary of three thousand riyals per month, but he spends four thousand every month. Do we give him or not? How much do we give him? We give him twelve thousand, because he has three thousand and spends four thousand, so we must complete it for him. We give him four thousand every month, meaning he has three thousand and we provide one thousand, and so on. The *gharimin* (those in debt) are the indebted, meaning the one who has a debt and cannot pay it off. He has no liquid cash, no real estate, and no trade. The point is that he is unable to pay his debt. We pay off his debt from the *zakah*. We have two ways to do this: the first way is to give it to him so he pays it off, and the second way is for us to pay it off on his behalf, meaning we go to the creditor and give it to him. Which of the two is better?
The student: The second.

The Shaykh : No, there is a distinction. If we know that the man is keen to clear his conscience and is trustworthy, and that if we give it to him he will pay it off, then it is better to give it to him so he pays it off, because that covers his shame and keeps the giver away from *riya'* (showing off). But if we know that the man is one who squanders money, such that if we give it to him to pay the debt, he will go and buy things with it that are not needed, then we do not give it to him. Instead, we go to his creditor and pay it off on his behalf, even if he does not return it. This is because Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) said: and He did not say "and for the *gharimin*." Since the letter *lam* was not mentioned, we know that it is not a condition that the debtor be given ownership of the money to pay his debt. So we go to his creditor and say, "Please, this is for so-and-so, one thousand riyals. This is one thousand riyals," and we intend it from the *zakah*. In this case, it is obligatory to inform the creditor, so we say, "We have paid off your debt for you." Why? Because the creditor might forget and demand the debt from the debtor, even though it has already been paid. This is to reassure the debtor that Allah has paid off his debt. And know that whenever these descriptions are found in a person, he is eligible for *zakah*, whether he is a close relative or a distant one, even your brother, your son, or your father. Any person in whom these descriptions are found is entitled to it, except if the person with these descriptions is someone upon whom you are obligated to spend. In that case, you do not give him from your *zakah* for his need. For example, a man has a father who is in his house, and his father is in his own house. His father needs support, and the son is wealthy and has ample wealth. Does he give him from his *zakah*?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Why? It is obligatory for him to spend on his father, and it is not permissible for him to give him from his *zakah*, because if he gave him from his *zakah*, he would save himself the expense of maintenance. Now, if a man has a lot of money and his father is managing his affairs well and does not need support, but his father has a debt, does he pay off his father's debt? Yes, he pays off his father's debt. Why? Because it is not obligatory for the son to pay off his father's debt, so he is not saving his own money. And if there is another debtor besides his father, his father is more deserving of having his debt paid off, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Perhaps we will suffice with this amount to take a little from the questions during the remaining time. We ask Allah the Exalted to grant us and you success in beneficial knowledge and righteous deeds, and to make what we have learned a proof for us on the Day we meet Him.