Explanation of the author's statement: "And zakah is obligatory in the substance of the wealth, and it has a connection to the liability."

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And zakah is obligatory in the substance of the wealth, and it has a connection to the liability". The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed on whether zakah is obligatory in the liability or whether it is obligatory in the substance of the wealth. Some scholars said that it is obligatory in the liability and has no connection to the wealth at all, based on the evidence that if the wealth perishes after zakah becomes obligatory, the person must still pay the zakah even if it perished. Other scholars said that zakah is obligatory in the substance of the wealth, based on the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: and the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Mu'adh when he sent him to Yemen, where he said: . Thus, zakah is obligatory in the substance of the wealth. Both opinions face a problem. If we say it is obligatory in the substance of the wealth, its connection to the substance is like the connection of a pledge to the pledged item, so it would not be permissible for the owner of the wealth to dispose of it once zakah becomes obligatory in it. This is certainly contrary to reality, as the one who pays zakah is allowed to dispose of his wealth even after zakah becomes obligatory in it, provided he guarantees the zakah. However, if we say it is in the liability and obligatory even if the wealth perishes after zakah becomes obligatory without negligence or fault, there is also a consideration there. The opinion followed by the author is a comprehensive one that combines both meanings: it is obligatory in the substance of the wealth and has a connection to the liability. The person is demanded to pay it from his liability, and it is obligatory in the wealth; without the wealth, zakah would not be obligatory. Without the wealth, zakah would not become obligatory. So it is obligatory in the substance of the wealth, except for one issue: trade goods. Zakah is not obligatory in the substance of trade goods, but it is obligatory in their value. For this reason, if one pays zakah on trade goods from the goods themselves, it does not suffice him; rather, he must pay it from the value. For example, if the owner of a shop completes the lunar year and says, "I have sugar, I have tea, and I have clothes; I will pay the zakah on the sugar from the sugar, the tea from the tea, and the clothes from the clothes," we say: No, you must pay it from the value. Estimate the value of these assets you have and pay a quarter of a tenth of their value, because that is more beneficial for the poor, and because your wealth did not remain in this form from the beginning of the year to the end. The sugar might change, you might bring rice or something else. This is unlike grazing livestock, which remains from the beginning of the lunar year to the end, and zakah is paid from the substance of the animals. This opinion, that it is not valid to pay zakah on trade goods except from their value, is the correct one. Accordingly, trade goods are an exception to his statement: "it is obligatory in the substance of the wealth". Trade goods are an exception to this, as zakah is obligatory in their value, not in their substance, and it has a connection to the liability.
So, it is permissible for the one upon whom zakah is obligatory to sell the wealth, but he must guarantee the zakah. It is also permissible for him to give it as a gift, but he must guarantee the zakah, because this connection to the wealth is not a complete connection in every aspect such that we would say the wealth in which zakah is obligatory is like pledged property. Rather, it has a connection to the liability, and the ability to pay is not a condition for its obligation. Yes?

The questioner : ... .