Continuation of the discussion on zakah and its conditions.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : There is no contradiction. A slave has wealth; the first is for the specific owner, just as you say a camel has a saddle. The second is that his wealth belongs to the one who sold it. What is this lam for? For ownership. So when the two meanings differ, no contradiction arises. What is the evidence for making Islam a condition for the obligation of zakah?
The questioner : Islam is the foundation, so...
The Shaykh : Yes, but there is no evidence for that; this is a rationale.
The questioner : The saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)...
The Shaykh : Like prayer.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Good, that is fine. This is evidence. Another piece of evidence?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, that the wealth of a disbeliever is worthless... Is there a clear verse in the subject?
The questioner : His saying, the Exalted:[Ali 'Imran 3:85].
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Salama?
The questioner : His saying, Exalted is He:[At-Tawbah 9:103]
The Shaykh : Anything other than this?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh :[At-Tawbah 9:54] Yes, good. Making ownership of the nisab a condition means that a person must own a zakatable nisab. What is the evidence for this?
The questioner : His saying, may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Half a dinar, good.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : A quarter of the tenthSahih Muslim 980 Sahih al-Bukhari 1405 And he said regarding sheep: Muwatta Malik 17:26 one sheep... and so on.
So ownership of the nisab is necessary. Is there also evidence for this? Is there a rationale for this?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, other than that, because what is below the nisab cannot bear the sharing of wealth. If we took from him, for example, one riyal, and we said there is no nisab, we would say zakah is obligatory on the one riyal. If we took a quarter of a riyal from the one riyal, it would diminish it greatly. For this reason, they said that what is below the nisab cannot bear what? Sharing of wealth. So there is evidence and there is a rationale. Good. Stability of ownership is a condition. Is it possible that there is evidence or a rationale for this? Or do we have to know an example of that in order for it to become clear? If I partnered with a person and gave him dirhams to trade with, and he gets half the profit, and the money profited, profiting more than the nisab. I gave him one hundred and it reached one thousand, and the year passed over it. Now we have nine hundred, all of it profit. The share of the mudharib (the worker) from this profit is four hundred and fifty, and zakah is not obligatory on it. And the share of the mudharib (the owner of the capital) is four hundred and fifty, and zakah is obligatory on it, added to the capital, which is one hundred. So zakah is due on five hundred and fifty. As for the mudharib (the worker), there is no zakah on him. Why? Because his ownership is not stable, for it is possible that he sells once and then again and then loses. So it is not fixed. If he loses, it means his ownership did not stabilize on that. Now do you know why zakah is not obligatory on wealth whose ownership is not stable? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because it is exposed to loss. But someone might say, yes, it is exposed to loss, but if the year is completed for him and it is not lost, why do you not make it obligatory on him? Whenever a year is completed and it remains, you make zakah obligatory on him? We said because he has no original capital to return to, unlike the share of the owner of the capital, for which there is an original capital to return to, which is the capital. This is how they distinguished between them. What is that in which the completion of the year is not required?
The questioner : Four... the offspring of grazing livestock, trade goods...
The Shaykh : The offspring of grazing livestock are livestock.
The questioner : What comes out of the earth.
The Shaykh : Yes, the tenth-taxed, which is what comes out of the earth. Good.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, four: the tenth-taxed, which is what comes out of the earth, the offspring of grazing livestock, the profit of trade, and the rest? Meaning what whose zakah is due immediately, like rikaz, if we say that the fifth in which zakah is obligatory, and also honey, according to the opinion that it is obligatory, and fruits, which are the tenth-taxed. Good.
A man bought a piece of land for ten thousand riyals, and after nine months it reached twenty thousand. Is zakah obligatory on him on the ten thousand riyals or on the twenty thousand? Shaybah?
The questioner : The twenty thousand.
The Shaykh : But, the ten thousand profit did not complete its year until six months.
The questioner : But the capital is...
The Shaykh : I mean...
The questioner : It was added to it.
The Shaykh : The profit follows the capital, right? So when the year is completed, we make zakah obligatory on him on ten thousand riyals, because the profit follows the original. Good. A man has five thousand riyals, and after six months, a deceased person died, leaving an estate, and he inherited five thousand riyals, and the year of the first five thousand was completed. Is zakah obligatory on him on the second five thousand or not?
The questioner : Zakah is not obligatory on it.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Meaning it is not attached to an original, yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not attached to the first one. Abd al-Rahman, the same thing?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This has no original to be built upon. It is a new inheritance, just as if he were given a gift during the year, he does not add it to what preceded in the year. Yes, good.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "In the offspring of grazing livestock, its year is the year of its original if it reaches the nisab, and if not, then from its completion" What does this phrase mean? Yes?
The questioner : ... If the original has completed the nisab, its year is the year of its original...
The Shaykh : And if not?
The questioner : And if not, it starts from the completion of the nisab of the original.
The Shaykh : Good, give an example for the first case, if the original is below the nisab?
The questioner : If the original is below the nisab?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : For example, if a man has thirty-five sheep.
The Shaykh : How much?
The questioner : Thirty-five sheep, and the year passes over them, so he does not pay zakah.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : And when they give birth and reach forty, he starts from when the nisab is reached.
The Shaykh : Meaning, for example, the sheep remained thirty-five for six months, then each one gave birth to one. How many do you have?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He has seventy. Does he build on the year of the thirty-five that has passed six months, or from when they gave birth?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : From when they gave birth. Why? Because the original was below the nisab, so he does not build on it. Good, if he had forty for six months, then each one gave birth to one? What is the year of this from the original? How much is obligatory on him when the year is completed?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : A mistake.
The questioner : One sheep.
The Shaykh : Get it right, everyone. He has forty sheep, and six months have passed over them, so each one gave birth to one, and the year was completed.
The questioner : One sheep.
The Shaykh : One sheep. Why? Because the fraction is not counted. The fraction between the two thresholds, from forty sheep to one hundred and twenty-one to one hundred and twenty, has only one sheep in it.
The questioner : One sheep.
The Shaykh : One sheep, yes, it has only one sheep in it. Meaning, if forty sheep gave birth, if each one gave birth to two?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : One sheep, because the total would be one hundred and twenty. Good, if one gave birth to three.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And the rest are on two sheep. So when the year of the mothers is completed, two sheep are obligatory on him. Is that correct or not? Good. The important thing is that the year of the offspring of grazing livestock is the year of its original if it is a nisab. But if it is not a nisab, it is from the completion of the nisab. Good.
The questioner : Islam is the foundation, so...
The Shaykh : Yes, but there is no evidence for that; this is a rationale.
The questioner : The saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)...
The Shaykh : Like prayer.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Good, that is fine. This is evidence. Another piece of evidence?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, that the wealth of a disbeliever is worthless... Is there a clear verse in the subject?
The questioner : His saying, the Exalted:
And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him
ومن يبتغي غير الإسلام دينا فلا يقبل منهThe Shaykh : No.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Salama?
The questioner : His saying, Exalted is He:
Take, [O, Muhammad], from their wealth a charity
خذ من أموالهم صدقةThe Shaykh : Anything other than this?
And what prevented them
وما منعهمThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh :
And what prevents their expenditures from being accepted from them but that they have disbelieved in Allah and in His Messenger
وما منعهم أن تقبل منهم نفقاتهم إلا أنهم كفروا بالله وبرسولهThe questioner : His saying, may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Half a dinar, good.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : A quarter of the tenth
less than five wasqs of dates
ليس فيما دون خمسة أوسق من صدقةand no Zakat is due on less than five camels
وليس فيما دون خمس ذود صدقةif they come to forty or more, one ewe
إذا بلغت أربعين شاة شاةSo ownership of the nisab is necessary. Is there also evidence for this? Is there a rationale for this?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, other than that, because what is below the nisab cannot bear the sharing of wealth. If we took from him, for example, one riyal, and we said there is no nisab, we would say zakah is obligatory on the one riyal. If we took a quarter of a riyal from the one riyal, it would diminish it greatly. For this reason, they said that what is below the nisab cannot bear what? Sharing of wealth. So there is evidence and there is a rationale. Good. Stability of ownership is a condition. Is it possible that there is evidence or a rationale for this? Or do we have to know an example of that in order for it to become clear? If I partnered with a person and gave him dirhams to trade with, and he gets half the profit, and the money profited, profiting more than the nisab. I gave him one hundred and it reached one thousand, and the year passed over it. Now we have nine hundred, all of it profit. The share of the mudharib (the worker) from this profit is four hundred and fifty, and zakah is not obligatory on it. And the share of the mudharib (the owner of the capital) is four hundred and fifty, and zakah is obligatory on it, added to the capital, which is one hundred. So zakah is due on five hundred and fifty. As for the mudharib (the worker), there is no zakah on him. Why? Because his ownership is not stable, for it is possible that he sells once and then again and then loses. So it is not fixed. If he loses, it means his ownership did not stabilize on that. Now do you know why zakah is not obligatory on wealth whose ownership is not stable? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because it is exposed to loss. But someone might say, yes, it is exposed to loss, but if the year is completed for him and it is not lost, why do you not make it obligatory on him? Whenever a year is completed and it remains, you make zakah obligatory on him? We said because he has no original capital to return to, unlike the share of the owner of the capital, for which there is an original capital to return to, which is the capital. This is how they distinguished between them. What is that in which the completion of the year is not required?
The questioner : Four... the offspring of grazing livestock, trade goods...
The Shaykh : The offspring of grazing livestock are livestock.
The questioner : What comes out of the earth.
The Shaykh : Yes, the tenth-taxed, which is what comes out of the earth. Good.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, four: the tenth-taxed, which is what comes out of the earth, the offspring of grazing livestock, the profit of trade, and the rest? Meaning what whose zakah is due immediately, like rikaz, if we say that the fifth in which zakah is obligatory, and also honey, according to the opinion that it is obligatory, and fruits, which are the tenth-taxed. Good.
A man bought a piece of land for ten thousand riyals, and after nine months it reached twenty thousand. Is zakah obligatory on him on the ten thousand riyals or on the twenty thousand? Shaybah?
The questioner : The twenty thousand.
The Shaykh : But, the ten thousand profit did not complete its year until six months.
The questioner : But the capital is...
The Shaykh : I mean...
The questioner : It was added to it.
The Shaykh : The profit follows the capital, right? So when the year is completed, we make zakah obligatory on him on ten thousand riyals, because the profit follows the original. Good. A man has five thousand riyals, and after six months, a deceased person died, leaving an estate, and he inherited five thousand riyals, and the year of the first five thousand was completed. Is zakah obligatory on him on the second five thousand or not?
The questioner : Zakah is not obligatory on it.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Meaning it is not attached to an original, yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not attached to the first one. Abd al-Rahman, the same thing?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This has no original to be built upon. It is a new inheritance, just as if he were given a gift during the year, he does not add it to what preceded in the year. Yes, good.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "In the offspring of grazing livestock, its year is the year of its original if it reaches the nisab, and if not, then from its completion" What does this phrase mean? Yes?
The questioner : ... If the original has completed the nisab, its year is the year of its original...
The Shaykh : And if not?
The questioner : And if not, it starts from the completion of the nisab of the original.
The Shaykh : Good, give an example for the first case, if the original is below the nisab?
The questioner : If the original is below the nisab?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : For example, if a man has thirty-five sheep.
The Shaykh : How much?
The questioner : Thirty-five sheep, and the year passes over them, so he does not pay zakah.
The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : And when they give birth and reach forty, he starts from when the nisab is reached.
The Shaykh : Meaning, for example, the sheep remained thirty-five for six months, then each one gave birth to one. How many do you have?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He has seventy. Does he build on the year of the thirty-five that has passed six months, or from when they gave birth?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : From when they gave birth. Why? Because the original was below the nisab, so he does not build on it. Good, if he had forty for six months, then each one gave birth to one? What is the year of this from the original? How much is obligatory on him when the year is completed?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : A mistake.
The questioner : One sheep.
The Shaykh : Get it right, everyone. He has forty sheep, and six months have passed over them, so each one gave birth to one, and the year was completed.
The questioner : One sheep.
The Shaykh : One sheep. Why? Because the fraction is not counted. The fraction between the two thresholds, from forty sheep to one hundred and twenty-one to one hundred and twenty, has only one sheep in it.
The questioner : One sheep.
The Shaykh : One sheep, yes, it has only one sheep in it. Meaning, if forty sheep gave birth, if each one gave birth to two?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : One sheep, because the total would be one hundred and twenty. Good, if one gave birth to three.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And the rest are on two sheep. So when the year of the mothers is completed, two sheep are obligatory on him. Is that correct or not? Good. The important thing is that the year of the offspring of grazing livestock is the year of its original if it is a nisab. But if it is not a nisab, it is from the completion of the nisab. Good.