Explanation of the author's statement: "And there is no zakah in the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) moved on to the second issue, which is his statement: "And there is no zakah in the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab". "No zakah" means that there is no obligatory zakah in the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab. This means that if a person has a nisab of gold, silver, grains, fruits, or livestock, but he has a debt that reduces the nisab, then there is no zakah on what he has. An example of this is a man who has one hundred thousand in his possession and owes ninety-nine thousand and nine hundred. What he has now is the excess of one hundred. One hundred is below the nisab, so there is no zakah on it. Why? Because zakah is only obligatory as a form of support so that the rich may support the poor. One who has a debt is poor. One who has a debt is the poor one. And because it was narrated from 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to preach and say: "Indeed, this is the month of the zakah of your wealth, so whoever has a debt, let him pay it off, and then let him pay his zakah". And 'Uthman is one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs whom we are commanded to follow. So the issue here has a report (athar) and has reasoning (nazariyyah), meaning there is evidence from a report and evidence from reasoning. The evidence from the report is the athar of 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), and the evidence from reasoning is that zakah is only obligatory as support for the poor, and the debtor is like the poor one; he needs someone to give to him so he can pay his debt. There is no difference between a deferred debt and a due debt; they are all the same. Meaning, if he has a debt, even if it is not due for another ten years, and he has wealth that the debt reduces below the nisab, then there is no zakah on him. An example is a man who owes ten thousand dirhams that are due after ten years, and he currently has ten thousand dirhams in his hand. We say there is no zakah on him. This is the well-known position in the madhhab, and you know what evidence they relied upon.
The first evidence that there is no zakah in the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab, that there is no zakah in his wealth?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And the debtor is like the poor one, okay, and the second one, the report-based one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : 'Umar or 'Uthman?
The questioner : 'Uthman.
The Shaykh : Yes, that he used to say: "Indeed, this is the month of the zakah of your wealth, so whoever has a debt, let him pay it off, and then let him pay his zakah". And this is one of the opinions in the issue. The second opinion is that the debt has no effect in preventing zakah, and that whoever has a nisab should pay his zakah, even if he has a debt that reduces the nisab, or consumes the nisab, or exceeds the nisab. These people argued with the general texts indicating the obligation of zakah in everything that reaches the nisab, such as the hadith of Anas ibn Malik in the book of alms that Abu Bakr wrote: "And in silver, a quarter of a tenth in every two hundred dirhams". Silver is silver; a quarter of a tenth in every two hundred dirhams. And likewise, it was mentioned regarding grazing livestock: "In every five camels, one sheep, and in every forty sheep, one sheep", and so on. They also argued that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send workers who collected zakah from the people of livestock and the people of fruits, and he did not order them to ask for details about whether they had debts or not. Even though it is the norm that the people of fruits had debts in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because it was their custom to advance payment for fruits, for one or two years, so the owner of the orchard would have a salam debt. And yet, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would estimate their fruits and take zakah from them.
They also argued with a third evidence that zakah is obligatory in wealth[At-Tawbah 9:103], and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent Mu'adh to Yemen and said: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 4:30. And the debt is obligatory in the conscience (dhammah), it is not in the wealth. Therefore, if all the wealth in his hand perished, nothing of the debt would be dropped from him. If he borrowed money and bought goods with it for sale and trade, and then the wealth perished, it perished, is the debt dropped?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Why?
The attendees: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is attached to the conscience (dhammah), and zakah is obligatory in the actual wealth, so the aspect is separate, and thus there is no collision or contradiction. As for the athar of 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), we concede that if a person has a due debt and he performs the obligation, which is paying it off, then there is no zakah on him, because he will pay from his wealth, and the precedence of the debt necessitates that it be prioritized in payment. The debt takes precedence over zakah because when is zakah obligatory? When the lunar year is completed, and the debt is prior, so due to its precedence, it is more deserving of priority than zakah. And we say to the one who fears Allah and pays what is due on him: there is no zakah on you except on what remains. As for a person who does not pay what is due on him, delays, and benefits from the wealth, and then we say that this debt you have drops the zakah, this does not align with the athar.
As for the theoretical evidence that zakah was made obligatory as support, we first object to this thing. The most important thing in zakah is what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) mentioned:[At-Tawbah 9:103]. It is a worship by which a person is purified from sins. For charity extinguishes the sin as water extinguishes fire, and souls grow by it, and a person feels, when he gives it, an expansion of the chest and tranquility of the heart. So the purpose of zakah is not only the material aspect. And even if one of its objectives is support, this does not necessitate specifying the general texts, because specifying the general texts means invalidating a part of them, which is what we excluded by the specification. And invalidating a part of the meaning of the text is not an easy matter that can be supported by a derived 'illah (operative cause), which may be defective, or sound, or alive, or dead. Yes, if the Lawgiver had explicitly stated this, a person would have room to say that the debtor is not worthy of support; he needs someone to support him. And as for the need of the debtor, the need of the debtor is on the head and on the wide and spacious side; he is one of the categories to whom zakah is paid to meet their need. In which category? In the debtors (gharimin). And we say: we pay your debt from the zakah. You have worshipped Allah by paying the zakah, and we pay your debt from it. If someone asks how this can be, that a person is both a payer of zakah and one upon whom zakah is paid? There is nothing strange about this. If a person has a nisab or two nisabs that are not sufficient for his expenses, but they remain with him until the lunar year, here we say: we give it to him for expenses and order him to pay zakah, and there is no contradiction.
These are two opposing opinions. The first opinion is that there is no zakah in the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab, even if it is not due for another twenty years. And based on this, we can say that everyone who has a debt to the Real Estate Development Fund has no zakah on him, even if he has fifty thousand, as long as he has one hundred thousand, he has no zakah. And this is a problem.
The second opinion is the opposite of this, that zakah is obligatory even if he has a debt that consumes [the nisab]. And we mentioned the evidence for that and answered the evidence of those who say that zakah is dropped.
The third opinion is a middle position, stating that visible wealth is subject to obligatory zakah even if the person has a debt that reduces the amount below the nisab, whereas hidden wealth is not subject to obligatory zakah if the person has a debt that reduces the amount below the nisab. What is visible wealth? It is grains, fruits, and livestock; these are visible wealth. Hidden wealth is gold, silver, and merchandise. These scholars said that we have evidence, which is first, the general textsJami` at-Tirmidhi 621Hasan (Darussalam) are general. Second, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send collectors to take zakah from visible wealth without ordering them to inquire about debts, even though it is the norm for people with fruits to have debts. Third, visible wealth is the object of the poor people's desire because they see it; so if one does not pay its zakah on the excuse that he has a debt, and debt is a hidden matter because a debtor does not write on his car or the exterior of his house that he is in debt, it is a hidden matter. So if people see that he has not paid the zakah on this visible wealth, that involves a bad opinion of him and causes resentment in the hearts of the poor. Therefore, we say that there is no zakah on hidden wealth for one who has a debt that reduces it below the nisab, and there is zakah on visible wealth. However, although this opinion appears strong at first glance, it is weak upon reflection, because their argument from the general texts includes hidden wealth without a doubt. And because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sending collectors without them inquiring indicates that zakah is attached to the wealth, attached to the wealth, and has no relation to the conscience, and there is no difference in this between visible wealth and hidden wealth. And because debt is a hidden matter, and visible and hidden wealth are equal in this regard. And if we say it is a form of generosity, there is no difference between this and that. And because what they claimed to be hidden wealth is questionable, for the merchant is known to people as a merchant; he may have, for example, car showrooms, warehouses of tools, yes, and great varieties of fabrics and many jewelry shops. Which is more visible: this, or a Bedouin's camels in a valley among the sands, unknown in the market even once? Say?
The audience: The first.
The Shaykh : The first. So hidden and visible is a relative matter. The visible may be hidden, and the hidden may be visible. And what I consider the stronger position is that zakah is obligatory absolutely, even if he has a debt that reduces the wealth below the nisab, except for a debt that became due before the zakah became due. Then he must pay it, and then he pays zakah on what remains after that, and by that his conscience is cleared. And if we say this, we encourage the debtors to do what? To fulfill their debts. If we say, my brother, you have a hundred thousand and you have one hundred and fifty thousand, and the debt is due, pay the debt, otherwise we will obligate you to pay zakah on the hundred thousand. Then he will say, I will pay the debt, because I will not pay the debt twice, so I will pay the debt.
And this is what we have chosen, and it is the choice of our Shaykh, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz. And the first one, which distinguishes between visible and hidden wealth, is the choice of our Shaykh, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di. So we have two Shaykhs in this issue. One Shaykh says to distinguish between visible and hidden wealth, and one Shaykh says there is no difference; all of it is not prevented by debt; the obligation of debt does not prevent the obligation of zakah, even if it reduces the nisab. And this last opinion is the one I consider the stronger, and I see that it is more cautious and clearer for the conscience. And praise be to Allah, charity does not decrease wealth. Who said it? The Infallible (peace and blessings be upon him), the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2029Sahih (Darussalam). And how many a person withholds his wealth from what Allah has obligated upon him, then Allah afflicts him with something that exhausts his wealth, right? How many a person prevents zakah, then calamities come to his wealth: burning, loss, illnesses that befall him or his family, which exhaust a lot of money. And how many a person is afflicted, and the wealth remains with him despite his shortcoming in the obligatory, but it is from the category of trial.
So the opinions regarding the debt on a person, if it prevents zakah, are three. The first, who knows? Khalid?
The questioner : Visible and hidden.
The Shaykh : That it prevents zakah in visible and hidden wealth. Good. The second, Khalid?
The questioner : ... Not in the visible and in the hidden.
The Shaykh : That it does not prevent zakah, neither in the visible nor in the hidden.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That it does not prevent it in visible wealth and prevents it in hidden wealth. And you have known the evidence for each opinion and its reasoning, and you have known the stronger position in this issue.
He said, may Allah have mercy on him: "And there is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab". And the apparent meaning of his words is that there is no difference between the debt being of the same type as what he has or of a different type. So if he has a debt in gold and he has silver, there is no zakah in it. A debt in silver and he has livestock, there is no zakah in it. All of this is according to the words of the author.
The first evidence that there is no zakah in the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab, that there is no zakah in his wealth?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And the debtor is like the poor one, okay, and the second one, the report-based one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : 'Umar or 'Uthman?
The questioner : 'Uthman.
The Shaykh : Yes, that he used to say: "Indeed, this is the month of the zakah of your wealth, so whoever has a debt, let him pay it off, and then let him pay his zakah". And this is one of the opinions in the issue. The second opinion is that the debt has no effect in preventing zakah, and that whoever has a nisab should pay his zakah, even if he has a debt that reduces the nisab, or consumes the nisab, or exceeds the nisab. These people argued with the general texts indicating the obligation of zakah in everything that reaches the nisab, such as the hadith of Anas ibn Malik in the book of alms that Abu Bakr wrote: "And in silver, a quarter of a tenth in every two hundred dirhams". Silver is silver; a quarter of a tenth in every two hundred dirhams. And likewise, it was mentioned regarding grazing livestock: "In every five camels, one sheep, and in every forty sheep, one sheep", and so on. They also argued that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send workers who collected zakah from the people of livestock and the people of fruits, and he did not order them to ask for details about whether they had debts or not. Even though it is the norm that the people of fruits had debts in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because it was their custom to advance payment for fruits, for one or two years, so the owner of the orchard would have a salam debt. And yet, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would estimate their fruits and take zakah from them.
They also argued with a third evidence that zakah is obligatory in wealth
Take, [O, Muhammad], from their wealth a charity
خذ من أموالهم صدقةInform them that Allah has made obligatory upon them a charity in their wealth, to be taken from their rich and returned to their poor.
أعلمهم أن الله افترض عليهم صدقة في أموالهم تؤخذ من أغنيائهم فترد على فقرائهمThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Why?
The attendees: ...
The Shaykh : Because it is attached to the conscience (dhammah), and zakah is obligatory in the actual wealth, so the aspect is separate, and thus there is no collision or contradiction. As for the athar of 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), we concede that if a person has a due debt and he performs the obligation, which is paying it off, then there is no zakah on him, because he will pay from his wealth, and the precedence of the debt necessitates that it be prioritized in payment. The debt takes precedence over zakah because when is zakah obligatory? When the lunar year is completed, and the debt is prior, so due to its precedence, it is more deserving of priority than zakah. And we say to the one who fears Allah and pays what is due on him: there is no zakah on you except on what remains. As for a person who does not pay what is due on him, delays, and benefits from the wealth, and then we say that this debt you have drops the zakah, this does not align with the athar.
As for the theoretical evidence that zakah was made obligatory as support, we first object to this thing. The most important thing in zakah is what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) mentioned:
Take, [O, Muhammad], from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase
خذ من أموالهم صدقة تطهّرهم وتزكيهم بهاThese are two opposing opinions. The first opinion is that there is no zakah in the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab, even if it is not due for another twenty years. And based on this, we can say that everyone who has a debt to the Real Estate Development Fund has no zakah on him, even if he has fifty thousand, as long as he has one hundred thousand, he has no zakah. And this is a problem.
The second opinion is the opposite of this, that zakah is obligatory even if he has a debt that consumes [the nisab]. And we mentioned the evidence for that and answered the evidence of those who say that zakah is dropped.
The third opinion is a middle position, stating that visible wealth is subject to obligatory zakah even if the person has a debt that reduces the amount below the nisab, whereas hidden wealth is not subject to obligatory zakah if the person has a debt that reduces the amount below the nisab. What is visible wealth? It is grains, fruits, and livestock; these are visible wealth. Hidden wealth is gold, silver, and merchandise. These scholars said that we have evidence, which is first, the general texts
one sheep (is due) for every forty sheeps
في كل أربعين شاة شاةThe audience: The first.
The Shaykh : The first. So hidden and visible is a relative matter. The visible may be hidden, and the hidden may be visible. And what I consider the stronger position is that zakah is obligatory absolutely, even if he has a debt that reduces the wealth below the nisab, except for a debt that became due before the zakah became due. Then he must pay it, and then he pays zakah on what remains after that, and by that his conscience is cleared. And if we say this, we encourage the debtors to do what? To fulfill their debts. If we say, my brother, you have a hundred thousand and you have one hundred and fifty thousand, and the debt is due, pay the debt, otherwise we will obligate you to pay zakah on the hundred thousand. Then he will say, I will pay the debt, because I will not pay the debt twice, so I will pay the debt.
And this is what we have chosen, and it is the choice of our Shaykh, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz. And the first one, which distinguishes between visible and hidden wealth, is the choice of our Shaykh, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di. So we have two Shaykhs in this issue. One Shaykh says to distinguish between visible and hidden wealth, and one Shaykh says there is no difference; all of it is not prevented by debt; the obligation of debt does not prevent the obligation of zakah, even if it reduces the nisab. And this last opinion is the one I consider the stronger, and I see that it is more cautious and clearer for the conscience. And praise be to Allah, charity does not decrease wealth. Who said it? The Infallible (peace and blessings be upon him), the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)
Charity does not diminish wealth
ما نقصت صدقة من مالSo the opinions regarding the debt on a person, if it prevents zakah, are three. The first, who knows? Khalid?
The questioner : Visible and hidden.
The Shaykh : That it prevents zakah in visible and hidden wealth. Good. The second, Khalid?
The questioner : ... Not in the visible and in the hidden.
The Shaykh : That it does not prevent zakah, neither in the visible nor in the hidden.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That it does not prevent it in visible wealth and prevents it in hidden wealth. And you have known the evidence for each opinion and its reasoning, and you have known the stronger position in this issue.
He said, may Allah have mercy on him: "And there is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab". And the apparent meaning of his words is that there is no difference between the debt being of the same type as what he has or of a different type. So if he has a debt in gold and he has silver, there is no zakah in it. A debt in silver and he has livestock, there is no zakah in it. All of this is according to the words of the author.