Explanation of the author's statement: "The Book of Zakah."

The Shaykh : We have finished discussing prayer, and we now begin with the Book of Zakah. Yes, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) use "Book" for categories, "Chapter" for types, and "Section" for issues. It is well known that Zakah is a category distinct from prayer. In prayer, one finds "Chapter on Istisqa' (prayer for rain)," "Chapter on Eclipse," "Chapter on Voluntary Prayer," and so on; these are types. In the sections, for example, in the "Chapter on Voluntary Prayer," one mentions Witr, and when finished, one says "Section," and it is recommended to perform the Rawatib, and so on. Thus, sections are for issues, chapters are for types, and books are for categories. This is the general rule, though the situation may vary. Yes.
Then the author said "The Book of Zakah". He expressed it or titled it as a "Book" because it is an independent category. Zakah, as is not hidden from us all, is the most important pillar of Islam after prayer. Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) frequently pairs it with prayer in His Book. It is established from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) in one of the narrations from him that one who abandons it out of stinginess commits disbelief, like one who abandons prayer. However, the correct view is that one who abandons it does not commit disbelief. Those who declared one who abandons it, or one who withholds it out of stinginess, to be disbelievers said that Allah the Exalted said . They established the existence of brotherhood based on these three attributes: if they repent from shirk (associating partners with Allah), establish prayer, and give Zakah, then they are your brothers in religion. It is not possible for brotherhood in religion to be negated unless a person exits the religion. If he commits major sins, he is still our brother. Even if he commits a major sin, look at the intentional killer; Allah said about him from his brother. Who is his brother?
The attendees: ...

The Shaykh : His brother who was killed, and the pronoun refers to the killer, so Allah made the one who was killed a brother to the killer. And Allah the Exalted said regarding those who fight among the believers: Even though killing a believer and fighting him is among the major sins, so it is not possible for brotherhood in religion to be negated except by disbelief. So these scholars said that Allah the Exalted conditioned brotherhood in religion upon these three descriptions: meaning from shirk (associating partners with Allah), and there is no doubt that this view has a good aspect in arguing with this verse. But this verse is indicated by the authentic hadith of Abu Hurayrah in Sahih Muslim that the ruling of zakah is not the ruling of prayer, where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned the one who withholds the zakah of gold and silver and mentioned his punishment, then he said: He said: And if he were a disbeliever, he would have no way to Paradise. If someone asks: If you say this and you introduce a specification to the verse in Surah at-Tawbah, why do you not say that regarding the one who abandons prayer? Because the ruling is one: if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, they are your brothers in religion? The answer to that is that regarding the one who abandons prayer, texts have come that indicate his disbelief, so for that reason we ruled with disbelief. Because these texts that came regarding the disbelief of the one who abandons prayer are established texts and have no opposing counter-argument. Everything that is said in the counter-arguments does not resist them, neither in authenticity nor in indication, meaning neither in establishment nor in indication. The most that they oppose the texts indicating the disbelief of the one who abandons prayer with is either a general statement, a comprehensive statement, or something restricted to a specific condition. As for there being a proof that says: "Whoever abandons prayer is a believer," or "Whoever abandons prayer has Paradise," or "Whoever does not pray is a believer," or "Whoever does not pray is in Paradise," this does not exist at all. So if that is the case, why do we interpret the texts indicating the disbelief of the one who abandons prayer as minor shirk, when there is no proof for this interpretation? If the proofs had come saying: "Whoever does not pray is a believer" or "Whoever does not pray is in Paradise," we would say it is obligatory to interpret the absolute texts of disbelief regarding the one who abandons prayer as what? As minor shirk. But there is no proof at all. We divided the proofs into five categories: either there is no proof in them at all, like the argument of some with the saying of Allah the Exalted: Because we say that abandoning prayer is shirk, as in the hadith of Jabir in Muslim: Or they are general, and it is known that the general is specified by the specific. This is the method of the people of knowledge, like: This is general, it is specified by the one who abandons prayer, and it is also specified by the one who denies some things. The one who denies, if he denies any verse of the Qur'an, any verse of the Qur'an he denies, it is disbelief, and he says: "There is no god but Allah."
Or they are restricted by a description with which abandoning prayer is not possible, like the hadith of 'Utbah . Is it reasonable that a man who says "La ilaha illa Allah" seeking thereby the Face of Allah would persist in abandoning prayer? Absolutely not. If he were sincere in seeking the Face of Allah, he would not persist in abandoning prayer. To say "I say La ilaha illa Allah seeking thereby the Face of Allah and I do not pray" is not reasonable. Or it is restricted by a state in which one is excused, like the hadith of Hudhayfah regarding a people in whom Islam was extinguished and they did not know anything about Islam except the saying "La ilaha illa Allah." These people, without doubt, as long as they belong to Islam but did not know of Islam except this great word, are excused and deserving of entering Paradise, because this is the utmost they can do. And Allah the Exalted said . As for the hadith of intercession that Allah the Exalted will take out of the Fire one who never did any good, it is amazing that these people argue with it that one who abandons prayer does not commit disbelief, while they do not argue with it that one who abandons the word of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) does not commit disbelief. The greatest good and the last good is saying "La ilaha illa Allah." And they do not say that one who abandons "La ilaha illa Allah" is taken out of the Fire. So we say: If you take the generality of this hadith, take it for yourselves and for others. Say "he never did any good," and among the good is saying "La ilaha illa Allah." Take out of the Fire those who did not say "La ilaha illa Allah" according to your saying. If we have a proof indicating the disbelief of one who abandons prayer, we say he is a disbeliever originally, and a disbeliever is not benefited by the intercession of the intercessors, whether he did good or did not do good. The issue is very clear. But as I said and repeat, and I ask Allah to help me also in implementing what I say, that a person should argue before he believes. Meaning, some scholars magnified that we say to a man who says "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Allah is the Lord of the worlds, and He is One, and I associate nothing with Him, and in His hand is the dominion of the heavens and the earth, but I do not pray," that he is a disbeliever. They magnified saying to him that he is a disbeliever. And why should we not say he is a disbeliever when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) declared him a disbeliever? The most merciful of creation to creation is the Messenger of Allah, and he said . And he said . Then the speech of the Lord of the worlds . We do not rule on anyone, neither with faith nor with disbelief, nor with open sinfulness nor with righteousness, nor on an action that it is lawful or forbidden or obligatory, except by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. The ruling is not ours; the ruling is for Allah and His Messenger. If Allah rules on a person with disbelief, then we do not hesitate to say he is a disbeliever. We do not hesitate. So the issue is clear upon reflection, but a person becomes arrogant about it and magnifies it, then tries to interpret the texts or argue with texts that have no indication.
What remains for us is the fifth category of the proofs with which they opposed the established proofs: weak hadiths. And it is known that the weak does not resist the authentic. This is an agreed-upon matter. So if we have weak hadiths and authentic hadiths, it is obligatory for us to take the authentic hadiths. Yes.