Explanation of the author's statement: "Chapter: It is obligatory in thirty cows a one-year-old male or female, and in forty a two-year-old, then in every thirty a one-year-old and in every forty a two-year-old"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said "Chapter on the zakah of cows" We speak of the zakah of cows just as we spoke of the zakah of camels, meaning that the four categories we mentioned include cows, camels, and sheep. Cows are called that because they break the earth with plowing, meaning they cut it open. "It is obligatory in thirty cows a one-year-old male or female" A one-year-old male or a one-year-old female, each of them being one year old, and in less than thirty there is nothing. Glory be to Allah, there is a great difference between camels and cows in the matter of zakah. The nisab for camels starts from five, and this one starts from thirty, even though in the matter of sacrificial animals, yes, they are the same, but the Shari'ah is above human intellect, and it is obligatory to follow what the Shari'ah has brought.
"And in every forty a two-year-old" A two-year-old is two years old, female or male? Female, she is two years old. Okay, what is between thirty and forty? And a fraction, meaning nine and a fraction, there is nothing in that. In fifty? Yes, and what do we give?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : A two-year-old. In sixty?
The questioner : Two one-year-olds.
The Shaykh : Two one-year-old males or two one-year-old females, because in every thirty there is a one-year-old male or female. In every forty? A two-year-old. So from forty to seventy and a fraction, correct?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Or to sixty, from forty to sixty, because in sixty there are two one-year-olds. Okay, in seventy?
The questioner : A one-year-old and a two-year-old.
The Shaykh : A one-year-old and a two-year-old. In eighty?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Two two-year-olds. In ninety?
The questioner : Three one-year-olds.
The Shaykh : Three one-year-olds. In one hundred?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Two one-year-olds and a two-year-old. Correct, two one-year-olds make sixty, and a two-year-old in forty. Okay, in one hundred and twenty?
The questioner : It is equal ... .
The Shaykh : And what is equal? In one hundred and twenty, four one-year-olds or three two-year-olds, like two hundred in camels. Okay, if the two options are equal, who has the choice? Is it for the giver or the taker? Yes, the choice is for the giver because he is the one who pays.
He said "And a male is sufficient here" Meaning in the zakah of cows, a male is sufficient. And in the zakah of camels?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, there is a two-year-old male, but the author did not mention it. A two-year-old male is in place of a one-year-old female if a one-year-old female is not found, but the author did not mention it. ... Yes, he mentioned it here. Yes, he mentioned it here.
He said "And a male is sufficient here" That is, in thirty cows. "The one-year-old and the two-year-old male in place of a one-year-old female, correct, and if the nisab is all males", in three places. A male is sufficient in three places. The first place is the one-year-old in thirty cows. The second place is the two-year-old male in place of a one-year-old female if he does not have a one-year-old female. And a one-year-old female is obligatory in what? In twenty-five. So if he has twenty-five camels, we say you owe a one-year-old female, a heifer that is one year old. He says I do not have a heifer that is one year old. We say you owe a camel, a two-year-old male that is two years old. The second place is if the nisab is all males.
The questioner : The third.
The Shaykh : The third, yes, the third is if the nisab is all males, then it is sufficient to give a male from them. Just as if he has twenty-five camels, all males, he owes a one-year-old male, because a person is not burdened with something that is not in his wealth, and because zakah was made obligatory for the sake of mutual support, so the male has a male and the female has a female. Some scholars differed on this and said that if the nisab is males, then what the Lawgiver specified is obligatory. So if he has twenty-five camels, all males, he owes a one-year-old female. If he does not find one, then a two-year-old male. And if he has thirty-six camels, then a two-year-old female is in them, and a two-year-old male is not sufficient, and what has completed three years is not sufficient.
And this opinion is closer to the apparent meaning of the Sunnah, and the opinion the author followed is closer to the meaning and analogy, because a person is only obligated to give something like his wealth. So if his wealth is all males, how do we obligate him to bring females? The first opinion says because the Shari'ah specified it, saying a two-year-old female, a one-year-old female, a three-year-old, a four-year-old, so how do we turn away from what the Shari'ah brought for the sake of mere analogy? And accordingly, the safer opinion is the second one, and the more analogous is what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) followed, that if the nisab is all males, then a male is sufficient. Okay.
Then he said "Chapter on the zakah of sheep".
"And in every forty a two-year-old" A two-year-old is two years old, female or male? Female, she is two years old. Okay, what is between thirty and forty? And a fraction, meaning nine and a fraction, there is nothing in that. In fifty? Yes, and what do we give?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : A two-year-old. In sixty?
The questioner : Two one-year-olds.
The Shaykh : Two one-year-old males or two one-year-old females, because in every thirty there is a one-year-old male or female. In every forty? A two-year-old. So from forty to seventy and a fraction, correct?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Or to sixty, from forty to sixty, because in sixty there are two one-year-olds. Okay, in seventy?
The questioner : A one-year-old and a two-year-old.
The Shaykh : A one-year-old and a two-year-old. In eighty?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Two two-year-olds. In ninety?
The questioner : Three one-year-olds.
The Shaykh : Three one-year-olds. In one hundred?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Two one-year-olds and a two-year-old. Correct, two one-year-olds make sixty, and a two-year-old in forty. Okay, in one hundred and twenty?
The questioner : It is equal ... .
The Shaykh : And what is equal? In one hundred and twenty, four one-year-olds or three two-year-olds, like two hundred in camels. Okay, if the two options are equal, who has the choice? Is it for the giver or the taker? Yes, the choice is for the giver because he is the one who pays.
He said "And a male is sufficient here" Meaning in the zakah of cows, a male is sufficient. And in the zakah of camels?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, there is a two-year-old male, but the author did not mention it. A two-year-old male is in place of a one-year-old female if a one-year-old female is not found, but the author did not mention it. ... Yes, he mentioned it here. Yes, he mentioned it here.
He said "And a male is sufficient here" That is, in thirty cows. "The one-year-old and the two-year-old male in place of a one-year-old female, correct, and if the nisab is all males", in three places. A male is sufficient in three places. The first place is the one-year-old in thirty cows. The second place is the two-year-old male in place of a one-year-old female if he does not have a one-year-old female. And a one-year-old female is obligatory in what? In twenty-five. So if he has twenty-five camels, we say you owe a one-year-old female, a heifer that is one year old. He says I do not have a heifer that is one year old. We say you owe a camel, a two-year-old male that is two years old. The second place is if the nisab is all males.
The questioner : The third.
The Shaykh : The third, yes, the third is if the nisab is all males, then it is sufficient to give a male from them. Just as if he has twenty-five camels, all males, he owes a one-year-old male, because a person is not burdened with something that is not in his wealth, and because zakah was made obligatory for the sake of mutual support, so the male has a male and the female has a female. Some scholars differed on this and said that if the nisab is males, then what the Lawgiver specified is obligatory. So if he has twenty-five camels, all males, he owes a one-year-old female. If he does not find one, then a two-year-old male. And if he has thirty-six camels, then a two-year-old female is in them, and a two-year-old male is not sufficient, and what has completed three years is not sufficient.
And this opinion is closer to the apparent meaning of the Sunnah, and the opinion the author followed is closer to the meaning and analogy, because a person is only obligated to give something like his wealth. So if his wealth is all males, how do we obligate him to bring females? The first opinion says because the Shari'ah specified it, saying a two-year-old female, a one-year-old female, a three-year-old, a four-year-old, so how do we turn away from what the Shari'ah brought for the sake of mere analogy? And accordingly, the safer opinion is the second one, and the more analogous is what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) followed, that if the nisab is all males, then a male is sufficient. Okay.
Then he said "Chapter on the zakah of sheep".