The discussion regarding the author's statement: "There is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab, even if the wealth is apparent."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author said "There is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt that reduces the nisab, even if the wealth is apparent". What is the meaning of this phrase? Brothers, I think... yes, did you not take it? You? Okay.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, brother... Okay, what is the meaning of the phrase first, and then we ask for the example second?
The questioner : The phrase is "There is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt".
The Shaykh :"That reduces the nisab, even if the wealth is apparent".
The questioner : It means that zakah is not obligatory upon him...
The Shaykh : Okay, if a person has wealth.
The questioner : And he has a debt.
The Shaykh : And the debt reduces the nisab, then there is no zakah on him for this wealth, even if it is much. Okay, what is the example?
The questioner : A man... forty sheep, and he has a debt...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Correct. A man has forty sheep and a debt equal to the value of one sheep, or the value of one sheep or more, or half a sheep. Then he owes no zakah on these animals, because the author says "even if the wealth is apparent". What is the difference between apparent wealth and hidden wealth? Brothers in the back, yes? Yes, brother? No, this one, you, the one behind you, Muhammad, yes, you, yes.
The questioner : ... grazing livestock, you see, is apparent.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is one: grazing livestock.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Residential animals are not from the apparent wealth.
The questioner : The tithed...
The Shaykh : The tithed means grains and fruits.
The questioner : Yes, they are not apparent.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, they are three: grains, fruits, and livestock. Okay, why did the author say "even if the wealth is apparent"? The one behind you, you?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, but why did he say "even if the wealth is apparent"? What is it pointing to?
The questioner : ... even if the wealth is apparent...
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, to a strong disagreement in the issue, which is that if the wealth is apparent, then there is zakah in it even if he has a debt. Okay, did you understand, everyone? So, if someone has livestock, forty sheep, and a debt of forty thousand, then he owes zakah according to the opinion that if the wealth is apparent, the debt does not prevent the obligation of zakah in it. Okay, so we have arrived at two opinions: the author's opinion that there is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt, whether the wealth is apparent or hidden.
The second opinion is that there is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt if the wealth is hidden, but if it is apparent, then there is zakah in it. Is there a third opinion? Yes, 'Abd al-Mannan?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It means that it does not prevent the obligation of zakah, neither in apparent wealth nor in hidden wealth. -Be patient... - So the opinions are three: that the debt is an absolute preventer, that it does not prevent absolutely, and that it prevents in hidden wealth but not in apparent wealth. What is the evidence of those who said that it prevents?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The athar established from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), he said... a month of zakah, and they said because the debtor is poor and needs zakah.
The Shaykh : Yes, zakah was made obligatory for the sake of mutual support, and the debtor is not qualified for it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and those who said that apparent wealth requires zakah even if he has a debt, what did they use as evidence, Khalid?
The questioner : They used as evidence the reasoning that apparent wealth is the object of the desires of the poor, unlike hidden wealth, for which there is no...
The Shaykh : Okay, this is reasoning.
The questioner : And because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send collectors at the time of zakah and did not ask for details about whether he had a debt or not?
The Shaykh : Perfect. These people used as evidence an athar and reasoning. The athar: they said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send collectors to the people of wealth, and they would take zakah from the fruits and from the livestock without asking for details, even though it is the norm that the owners of fruits in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) were what? Debtors, because people used to advance payment for fruits for one or two years. This is the athar. And the reasoning: they said because apparent wealth is the object of the desires of the poor, so if zakah is not paid from it, they will feel a need regarding the rich. Okay, and what is the evidence of those who said that it is obligatory absolutely?
The questioner : They said that the intended purpose of zakah is worship of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), meaning they prioritized the aspect of worship over the aspect of mutual support.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is reasoning. Is there an athar evidence?
The questioner : The generality of the hadiths.
The Shaykh : The generality, the generality of the texts that obligate zakah without detail. And we have an important rule that anyone who places a preventer on the indication of the texts needs evidence, and the generalities remain general except by evidence, and the absolutes remain absolute except by evidence. And this is a rule that benefits you, because you are addressed on the Day of Resurrection before Allah by what is apparent in the text. Okay, but the most apparent to us is that it is obligatory absolutely, due to the apparent evidence, which is very strong in apparent wealth. And the reasoning that zakah is mutual support is a reasoning that is questionable. And the correct view is that zakah is one of the greatest acts of worship, and that it is recommended for the one who pays zakah not to merely consider the poor, but to consider what? The worship of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) by giving out what He loves in what He loves. As for the athar of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), he (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered the payment of debts before the month of zakah arrives, in order for the person to remain free of debt, and the meaning is not that he wants to say that when the time of zakah comes and you have debts, there is no zakah on you in them. This is not indicated in the athar. And in any case, we say to the one who has a current debt: pay the debt, fear Allah, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) says.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, brother... Okay, what is the meaning of the phrase first, and then we ask for the example second?
The questioner : The phrase is "There is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt".
The Shaykh :"That reduces the nisab, even if the wealth is apparent".
The questioner : It means that zakah is not obligatory upon him...
The Shaykh : Okay, if a person has wealth.
The questioner : And he has a debt.
The Shaykh : And the debt reduces the nisab, then there is no zakah on him for this wealth, even if it is much. Okay, what is the example?
The questioner : A man... forty sheep, and he has a debt...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Correct. A man has forty sheep and a debt equal to the value of one sheep, or the value of one sheep or more, or half a sheep. Then he owes no zakah on these animals, because the author says "even if the wealth is apparent". What is the difference between apparent wealth and hidden wealth? Brothers in the back, yes? Yes, brother? No, this one, you, the one behind you, Muhammad, yes, you, yes.
The questioner : ... grazing livestock, you see, is apparent.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is one: grazing livestock.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Residential animals are not from the apparent wealth.
The questioner : The tithed...
The Shaykh : The tithed means grains and fruits.
The questioner : Yes, they are not apparent.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, they are three: grains, fruits, and livestock. Okay, why did the author say "even if the wealth is apparent"? The one behind you, you?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, but why did he say "even if the wealth is apparent"? What is it pointing to?
The questioner : ... even if the wealth is apparent...
The Shaykh : No.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, to a strong disagreement in the issue, which is that if the wealth is apparent, then there is zakah in it even if he has a debt. Okay, did you understand, everyone? So, if someone has livestock, forty sheep, and a debt of forty thousand, then he owes zakah according to the opinion that if the wealth is apparent, the debt does not prevent the obligation of zakah in it. Okay, so we have arrived at two opinions: the author's opinion that there is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt, whether the wealth is apparent or hidden.
The second opinion is that there is no zakah on the wealth of one who has a debt if the wealth is hidden, but if it is apparent, then there is zakah in it. Is there a third opinion? Yes, 'Abd al-Mannan?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It means that it does not prevent the obligation of zakah, neither in apparent wealth nor in hidden wealth. -Be patient... - So the opinions are three: that the debt is an absolute preventer, that it does not prevent absolutely, and that it prevents in hidden wealth but not in apparent wealth. What is the evidence of those who said that it prevents?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The athar established from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), he said... a month of zakah, and they said because the debtor is poor and needs zakah.
The Shaykh : Yes, zakah was made obligatory for the sake of mutual support, and the debtor is not qualified for it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and those who said that apparent wealth requires zakah even if he has a debt, what did they use as evidence, Khalid?
The questioner : They used as evidence the reasoning that apparent wealth is the object of the desires of the poor, unlike hidden wealth, for which there is no...
The Shaykh : Okay, this is reasoning.
The questioner : And because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send collectors at the time of zakah and did not ask for details about whether he had a debt or not?
The Shaykh : Perfect. These people used as evidence an athar and reasoning. The athar: they said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send collectors to the people of wealth, and they would take zakah from the fruits and from the livestock without asking for details, even though it is the norm that the owners of fruits in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) were what? Debtors, because people used to advance payment for fruits for one or two years. This is the athar. And the reasoning: they said because apparent wealth is the object of the desires of the poor, so if zakah is not paid from it, they will feel a need regarding the rich. Okay, and what is the evidence of those who said that it is obligatory absolutely?
The questioner : They said that the intended purpose of zakah is worship of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), meaning they prioritized the aspect of worship over the aspect of mutual support.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is reasoning. Is there an athar evidence?
The questioner : The generality of the hadiths.
The Shaykh : The generality, the generality of the texts that obligate zakah without detail. And we have an important rule that anyone who places a preventer on the indication of the texts needs evidence, and the generalities remain general except by evidence, and the absolutes remain absolute except by evidence. And this is a rule that benefits you, because you are addressed on the Day of Resurrection before Allah by what is apparent in the text. Okay, but the most apparent to us is that it is obligatory absolutely, due to the apparent evidence, which is very strong in apparent wealth. And the reasoning that zakah is mutual support is a reasoning that is questionable. And the correct view is that zakah is one of the greatest acts of worship, and that it is recommended for the one who pays zakah not to merely consider the poor, but to consider what? The worship of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) by giving out what He loves in what He loves. As for the athar of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), he (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered the payment of debts before the month of zakah arrives, in order for the person to remain free of debt, and the meaning is not that he wants to say that when the time of zakah comes and you have debts, there is no zakah on you in them. This is not indicated in the athar. And in any case, we say to the one who has a current debt: pay the debt, fear Allah, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) says