Why is the zakah of trade goods not paid from the goods themselves?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, because, as we mentioned previously, first, trade goods may not be suitable for the poor. Second, trade goods generally change, meaning that this specific item may not have been in one's possession for a full year. It is possible that at the beginning of the year, one owned an item that was more beneficial to the poor than this one. Third, the zakah on trade goods is obligatory based on their value, not on the items themselves. If the value is the basis for the obligation, then the value should be the basis for the payment.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is no evidence regarding the zakah on trade goods, meaning there is no proof like the evidence for gold and silver. Therefore, there is disagreement on this issue. The Zahiris do not consider zakah obligatory on trade goods, and some other scholars do not consider it obligatory either. In fact, some Hanbali jurists lean toward this view, but it is undoubtedly a weak opinion. If we say that zakah is not obligatory on trade goods, it means that all our merchants owe nothing except those who have dirhams. Yes, is that clear?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, because, as we mentioned previously, first, trade goods may not be suitable for the poor. Second, trade goods generally change, meaning that this specific item may not have been in one's possession for a full year. It is possible that at the beginning of the year, one owned an item that was more beneficial to the poor than this one. Third, the zakah on trade goods is obligatory based on their value, not on the items themselves. If the value is the basis for the obligation, then the value should be the basis for the payment.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is no evidence regarding the zakah on trade goods, meaning there is no proof like the evidence for gold and silver. Therefore, there is disagreement on this issue. The Zahiris do not consider zakah obligatory on trade goods, and some other scholars do not consider it obligatory either. In fact, some Hanbali jurists lean toward this view, but it is undoubtedly a weak opinion. If we say that zakah is not obligatory on trade goods, it means that all our merchants owe nothing except those who have dirhams. Yes, is that clear?