Discussion regarding the wealth of a person whose debt reduces the nisab.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said, "And there is no zakah in the wealth of a person whose debt reduces the nisab". Did we read this? We read it, okay.
The author's statement, "Even if the wealth is apparent". What is apparent wealth? Huh? Yes, do you know? Huh? Are you with me? Salama?
The questioner : ... livestock.
The Shaykh : Livestock, grains, and fruits, okay. Why were they called apparent?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And they are not kept in boxes, right? Okay. The author's statement, "Even if the wealth is apparent". Salih, what does this indicate?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, is it subject to zakah?
The questioner : If it is ... .
The Shaykh : But his statement, "Even if the wealth is apparent". Why did he mention it? Why did he bring it up and push it forward?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, it indicates a disagreement on the issue. Some scholars say that zakah is obligatory on the wealth of a person in debt if the wealth is apparent, such as livestock and fruits. They reasoned this by saying that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send collectors to take the zakah of livestock and dates without asking them if they had debts or not, even though the majority of them had debts regarding the dates. As Ibn Abbas said, "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) arrived in Madinah and they were advancing on fruits for one year and two years" "advancing on fruits". And what does "advancing on them" mean? It means they take dirhams from the rich in exchange for fruit when it becomes available. So you find the farmer taking dirhams from the rich on the condition that he will give him a hundred in exchange for dates when the debt's term arrives. They said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send the collectors to take the zakah from the fruits without asking the farmer if he was in debt or not? This is one point.
Second, the apparent wealth is the object of the poor people's desires, so the cause for zakah is apparent and the debt is hidden. Is it hidden or apparent? Hidden. And it is not possible for the hidden to drop the apparent. The debtor does not go to people and say, "Hey everyone, look, I have a debt in my liability, so exempt me from zakah." The debt is hidden and the fruits and livestock are apparent, so it is not possible for the hidden to drop the apparent because the right of the poor is attached to what they see. Do you understand, people?
There is a third opinion that zakah is obligatory on the wealth of the debtor absolutely. So if he has a thousand and a thousand in his liability, he must pay zakah on the thousand in his hand. These people argued with the generality of the evidence, the evidence ruling on the obligation of zakah in wealth without detail. And the opinion that zakah is a form of generosity, and the debtor is not one of those who are generous. This may be looked into, because zakah is in reality a form of worship. The most important thing in it is the worship, that a person spends what he loves for what Allah loves. This is the most important thing, not that he does good to the poor or is generous to the poor. No, doing good to the poor and being generous to the poor happens even from a disbeliever. But what is the most important thing in it? Worshipping Allah the Exalted by spending what is loved, and wealth is loved by souls.[Al-Fajr 89:20] [Al-'Adiyat 100:8] So when you spend your zakah, you do not intend that you are paying zakah merely for the sake of doing good to those who deserve it, but more important than that is what? Intending by it to worship Allah the Exalted by spending what you love for what Allah Mighty and Majestic loves, so that it is realized that you are presenting what Allah loves over what? Over what you love. Clear?
So we say that zakah is obligatory on the wealth that is in your hands, and the debt that is in your liability, may Allah help you with it. You pay the zakah of your wealth, and we give you what you need to pay off your debt. If we suppose he has a thousand riyals and he owes ten thousand riyals, we tell him, "Pay the zakah of your wealth, and we will help you pay off how much? Nine thousand riyals, because he has a thousand. Pay the zakah and pay off the debt of a thousand riyals, and we will give you nine thousand. So take and give."
This opinion is the choice of our Shaykh, Abdul Aziz ibn Baz. And the first one, that if the wealth is apparent, zakah is obligatory on it even if the person is in debt, and if it is hidden, there is no zakah on the debtor in the wealth that is in his hands, is the choice of our Shaykh, Abdul Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him). So we have two Shaykhs in this issue, and we will have two opinions in it. Yes, and which is more cautious? The second or the first? Meaning, the absolute obligation is more cautious and more purifying for the conscience. And perhaps Allah will bless the person in the wealth in his hand and help him to pay off his debt, as came in the authentic hadith:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2029Sahih (Darussalam).
Yes, okay. So the opinions regarding the author's statement, "And there is no zakah in the wealth of a person whose debt reduces the nisab", are three. But here is an issue we must be alert to, which is that if the debt becomes due before the obligation of zakah, what is obligatory on the person? To pay it. He pays the debt. If he pays the debt, zakah is not obligatory on him except on what remains.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "And expiation is like a debt". Is this the beginning of the lesson tonight?
The questioner : We took it.
The Shaykh : We took it after? What Allah willed.
The author's statement, "Even if the wealth is apparent". What is apparent wealth? Huh? Yes, do you know? Huh? Are you with me? Salama?
The questioner : ... livestock.
The Shaykh : Livestock, grains, and fruits, okay. Why were they called apparent?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And they are not kept in boxes, right? Okay. The author's statement, "Even if the wealth is apparent". Salih, what does this indicate?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, is it subject to zakah?
The questioner : If it is ... .
The Shaykh : But his statement, "Even if the wealth is apparent". Why did he mention it? Why did he bring it up and push it forward?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, it indicates a disagreement on the issue. Some scholars say that zakah is obligatory on the wealth of a person in debt if the wealth is apparent, such as livestock and fruits. They reasoned this by saying that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send collectors to take the zakah of livestock and dates without asking them if they had debts or not, even though the majority of them had debts regarding the dates. As Ibn Abbas said, "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) arrived in Madinah and they were advancing on fruits for one year and two years" "advancing on fruits". And what does "advancing on them" mean? It means they take dirhams from the rich in exchange for fruit when it becomes available. So you find the farmer taking dirhams from the rich on the condition that he will give him a hundred in exchange for dates when the debt's term arrives. They said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send the collectors to take the zakah from the fruits without asking the farmer if he was in debt or not? This is one point.
Second, the apparent wealth is the object of the poor people's desires, so the cause for zakah is apparent and the debt is hidden. Is it hidden or apparent? Hidden. And it is not possible for the hidden to drop the apparent. The debtor does not go to people and say, "Hey everyone, look, I have a debt in my liability, so exempt me from zakah." The debt is hidden and the fruits and livestock are apparent, so it is not possible for the hidden to drop the apparent because the right of the poor is attached to what they see. Do you understand, people?
There is a third opinion that zakah is obligatory on the wealth of the debtor absolutely. So if he has a thousand and a thousand in his liability, he must pay zakah on the thousand in his hand. These people argued with the generality of the evidence, the evidence ruling on the obligation of zakah in wealth without detail. And the opinion that zakah is a form of generosity, and the debtor is not one of those who are generous. This may be looked into, because zakah is in reality a form of worship. The most important thing in it is the worship, that a person spends what he loves for what Allah loves. This is the most important thing, not that he does good to the poor or is generous to the poor. No, doing good to the poor and being generous to the poor happens even from a disbeliever. But what is the most important thing in it? Worshipping Allah the Exalted by spending what is loved, and wealth is loved by souls.
And you love wealth with immense love.
وتحبون المال حبا جماAnd indeed he is, in love of wealth, intense.
وإنه لحب الخير لشديدSo we say that zakah is obligatory on the wealth that is in your hands, and the debt that is in your liability, may Allah help you with it. You pay the zakah of your wealth, and we give you what you need to pay off your debt. If we suppose he has a thousand riyals and he owes ten thousand riyals, we tell him, "Pay the zakah of your wealth, and we will help you pay off how much? Nine thousand riyals, because he has a thousand. Pay the zakah and pay off the debt of a thousand riyals, and we will give you nine thousand. So take and give."
This opinion is the choice of our Shaykh, Abdul Aziz ibn Baz. And the first one, that if the wealth is apparent, zakah is obligatory on it even if the person is in debt, and if it is hidden, there is no zakah on the debtor in the wealth that is in his hands, is the choice of our Shaykh, Abdul Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him). So we have two Shaykhs in this issue, and we will have two opinions in it. Yes, and which is more cautious? The second or the first? Meaning, the absolute obligation is more cautious and more purifying for the conscience. And perhaps Allah will bless the person in the wealth in his hand and help him to pay off his debt, as came in the authentic hadith:
Charity does not diminish wealth
ما نقصت صدقة من مالYes, okay. So the opinions regarding the author's statement, "And there is no zakah in the wealth of a person whose debt reduces the nisab", are three. But here is an issue we must be alert to, which is that if the debt becomes due before the obligation of zakah, what is obligatory on the person? To pay it. He pays the debt. If he pays the debt, zakah is not obligatory on him except on what remains.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "And expiation is like a debt". Is this the beginning of the lesson tonight?
The questioner : We took it.
The Shaykh : We took it after? What Allah willed.