Explanation of the author's statement: "And the obligation does not become established except by placing it in the threshing floor; if it is destroyed before that without any transgression on his part, it is dropped."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"The obligation does not become established except by placing it in the threshing floor". The threshing floor is the place where the fruit and crops are gathered. This is because when they plucked the fruit, they prepared a spacious place to put it in, and likewise when they harvested the crops, they prepared a spacious place to thresh them in. Therefore, the obligation does not become established until it is placed in the threshing floor. If it is destroyed after the ripening has become apparent and the grain has hardened, but before it is placed in the threshing floor, then it is dropped, provided that this was not due to transgression or negligence on his part. If it was due to transgression or negligence, it is not dropped. Now, if he places it in the threshing floor? If he places it in the threshing floor, then it becomes obligatory upon him, even if it is destroyed, even without transgression or negligence, because the obligation has become established in his liability, and it has become a debt upon him, whether it is destroyed due to negligence or without negligence. Based on this, the fruit and crops have three states.
The first state is that it is destroyed before the obligation of zakah becomes due, meaning before the grain hardens and before the fruit ripens. In this case, there is nothing upon the owner absolutely, whether it is destroyed by transgression, negligence, or otherwise; there is nothing upon him. What is the operative cause?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is that it is before the obligation. The second state is that it is destroyed after the obligation but before placing it in the threshing floor. In this case, there is a distinction: if it is due to transgression or negligence on his part, he is liable for the zakah; if it is without transgression or negligence, he is not liable.
The third state is after placing it in the threshing floor, meaning after plucking it and placing it in the threshing floor, or after harvesting it and placing it in the threshing floor. In this case, the zakah is obligatory upon him absolutely, because it has become established in his liability and has become a debt upon him. If a person has a debt that becomes obligatory upon him and his wealth is destroyed, and he has a debt upon him, is the debt dropped because the wealth was destroyed? No. Therefore, the zakah is not dropped from him in this state. Do you understand? Now, what is the transgression and negligence in the second state, which we have detailed? We said that if it is destroyed without transgression or negligence, there is no liability upon him. So what is transgression? Transgression, in general, is the rule of doing what is not permissible, and negligence is leaving what is obligatory. For example, if a man neglects after the ripening has become apparent in the fruit, in the date palm fruit, before he places it in the threshing floor, and he neglects it until the floods come and rain and spoil the dates, it is said: is this negligence or transgression?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is negligence. This is negligence. And if he set fire under the fruits, this is transgression because he did what is not permissible. Now, if Allah sends storms or hail after the ripening has become apparent and the grain has hardened, without his negligence or neglect, and they destroy the fruit or crops, yes, then there is nothing upon him because he did not transgress and did not neglect. Now, if the fruits or crops are stolen after the ripening has become apparent and the grain has hardened, is he liable?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We say that if it is due to his neglect or negligence, he is liable; otherwise, he is not. This is the rule, and the correct opinion in the third state, which is after he places it in the threshing floor, is that the zakah is not obligatory upon him unless he transgresses or is negligent. This is because the wealth with him after placing it in the threshing floor is a trust. If he transgresses or is negligent by delaying the payment of the zakah until this wealth is stolen, or something similar, then he is liable. But if he does not transgress or neglect, and he is diligent in trying to expedite its disposal, but it is destroyed, such as if he places the dates in the threshing floor to dry them, but the time in which they could dry has not passed until the dates are stolen, despite complete caution and guarding, do we say he is liable? He is not liable, except if he was able to pursue the thief and did not do so, then he would be negligent.
Therefore, the stronger opinion is that the third state is attached to the second state. This is because the wealth in which the zakah became obligatory and its obligation became established was with him as what? A trust. So how is he liable? As for his statement that if a man is in debt and his wealth is destroyed, the debt is not dropped by the destruction of his wealth, this is an analogy with a difference, because his debt is attached to his liability, and the zakah is attached to this wealth. So this wealth in which the zakah is due is a trust with him. Therefore, the correct view is that the third state is like the second state.
He says: "And the obligation does not become established except by placing it in the threshing floor; if it is destroyed before that without any transgression on his part", meaning without negligence, "it is dropped".
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If it is destroyed before that without any transgression on his part, it is dropped.
The first state is that it is destroyed before the obligation of zakah becomes due, meaning before the grain hardens and before the fruit ripens. In this case, there is nothing upon the owner absolutely, whether it is destroyed by transgression, negligence, or otherwise; there is nothing upon him. What is the operative cause?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is that it is before the obligation. The second state is that it is destroyed after the obligation but before placing it in the threshing floor. In this case, there is a distinction: if it is due to transgression or negligence on his part, he is liable for the zakah; if it is without transgression or negligence, he is not liable.
The third state is after placing it in the threshing floor, meaning after plucking it and placing it in the threshing floor, or after harvesting it and placing it in the threshing floor. In this case, the zakah is obligatory upon him absolutely, because it has become established in his liability and has become a debt upon him. If a person has a debt that becomes obligatory upon him and his wealth is destroyed, and he has a debt upon him, is the debt dropped because the wealth was destroyed? No. Therefore, the zakah is not dropped from him in this state. Do you understand? Now, what is the transgression and negligence in the second state, which we have detailed? We said that if it is destroyed without transgression or negligence, there is no liability upon him. So what is transgression? Transgression, in general, is the rule of doing what is not permissible, and negligence is leaving what is obligatory. For example, if a man neglects after the ripening has become apparent in the fruit, in the date palm fruit, before he places it in the threshing floor, and he neglects it until the floods come and rain and spoil the dates, it is said: is this negligence or transgression?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is negligence. This is negligence. And if he set fire under the fruits, this is transgression because he did what is not permissible. Now, if Allah sends storms or hail after the ripening has become apparent and the grain has hardened, without his negligence or neglect, and they destroy the fruit or crops, yes, then there is nothing upon him because he did not transgress and did not neglect. Now, if the fruits or crops are stolen after the ripening has become apparent and the grain has hardened, is he liable?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We say that if it is due to his neglect or negligence, he is liable; otherwise, he is not. This is the rule, and the correct opinion in the third state, which is after he places it in the threshing floor, is that the zakah is not obligatory upon him unless he transgresses or is negligent. This is because the wealth with him after placing it in the threshing floor is a trust. If he transgresses or is negligent by delaying the payment of the zakah until this wealth is stolen, or something similar, then he is liable. But if he does not transgress or neglect, and he is diligent in trying to expedite its disposal, but it is destroyed, such as if he places the dates in the threshing floor to dry them, but the time in which they could dry has not passed until the dates are stolen, despite complete caution and guarding, do we say he is liable? He is not liable, except if he was able to pursue the thief and did not do so, then he would be negligent.
Therefore, the stronger opinion is that the third state is attached to the second state. This is because the wealth in which the zakah became obligatory and its obligation became established was with him as what? A trust. So how is he liable? As for his statement that if a man is in debt and his wealth is destroyed, the debt is not dropped by the destruction of his wealth, this is an analogy with a difference, because his debt is attached to his liability, and the zakah is attached to this wealth. So this wealth in which the zakah is due is a trust with him. Therefore, the correct view is that the third state is like the second state.
He says: "And the obligation does not become established except by placing it in the threshing floor; if it is destroyed before that without any transgression on his part", meaning without negligence, "it is dropped".
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If it is destroyed before that without any transgression on his part, it is dropped.