Explanation of the author's statement: "The Chapter on the Zakah of the Two Currencies."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This is the detail: if the owner of the land hired him to dig for him, it belongs to the owner of the land; but if he hired him to dig a well and then this worker found it, it belongs to the worker Sahih al-Bukhari 1. Yes, then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said.
The questioner : Which is stronger?
The Shaykh : How? The stronger position is that it is distributed as fay'. We mentioned three aspects that indicate that the stronger position is the one that says it is distributed as fay'.
"The Chapter on the Zakah of the Two Currencies" "The two currencies" is the dual of naqd, meaning that which is coined, because naqd means giving, and gold and silver are not giving, but they are given. So naqd means that which is coined, and it refers to gold and silver. Accordingly, copper coins are not currency in the terminology of the jurists because they are neither gold nor silver. Therefore, the scholars differed on whether there is riba in them or not, and whether there is zakah in them absolutely, or whether they are commodities such that if one intends to trade with them, there is zakah, and if not, there is none? Here are two great and important issues. The first is whether there is zakah in them absolutely and that they are in the ruling of currency, or not, unless one intends to trade with them because they are commodities? This is one issue. The second issue is whether riba applies to them or not? Both are two great issues that require deep clarification. It is known that paper money is considered to be from the copper coins or from the two currencies?
The questioner : The copper coins.
The Shaykh : From the copper coins, because they are a substitute for the two currencies, and the two currencies are exchanged for them. So whoever says that copper coins are commodities says that zakah is not obligatory in them unless they are intended for trade. Accordingly, if a person has a million qirsh or a million of a million of qirsh, there is no zakah on him. And if he exchanges ten for twenty of these copper coins, it is permissible, whether he takes possession of them in the session of the contract or the taking possession is delayed, just as if he exchanges a garment for two garments, it is permissible even if the taking possession is delayed. But this opinion, if we were to adopt it, would be problematic. It would mean that most of the merchants today, yes, who have liquidity in dirhams, would have no zakah on them. And the banks would not be usurious, because what they mostly deal in is these paper currencies, the existing currency.
And I have read a paper titled "Persuading the Souls to Classify the Anwaat Currency with the Copper Coin Currency". The Anwaat is paper, but I do not think that a scholar would settle on this opinion because of the false implication that there is no riba among people today, because most of their dealings are with what? With paper money. And that there is no zakah on one who owns millions of millions of paper money unless he intends to trade with it.
The second opinion is that these copper coins are in the position of currency regarding the obligation of zakah, and that zakah is necessary for them to enter into the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted[At-Tawbah 9:103], and the currencies relied upon today are these currencies. And the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Mu'adh ibn Jabal Sahih al-Bukhari 1395, so they are wealth, and people have placed them in the position of currency, and they do not differ from currency in anything. So zakah in them is obligatory, there is no doubt in it.
What remains for us is the issue of riba. As for riba, whoever says that they are commodities, what does he say? That riba does not apply to them, neither riba al-fadl nor riba al-nasi'ah, just as commodities: exchanging a garment for two garments, or three, or ten, or a camel for two camels, there is no harm in it, whether the taking possession is hastened or delayed. So likewise, these currencies, exchanging some with some, there is no riba in it. It is permissible for me to take from you one hundred dollars for four hundred riyals for a year, or one thousand riyals for one thousand and two hundred for a year, because riba does not apply to them. And this opinion also has considerations, because people today see these currencies in the position of what? Currency. They do not distinguish in them except a slight distinction. And some of them hold that riba al-nasi'ah applies to them, but not riba al-fadl. Riba al-nasi'ah but not riba al-fadl. He says that if you exchange some with some with a delay in taking possession, this is forbidden, whether you exchange them with equality or with excess. And if you exchange some with some in cash, taking possession in the session of the contract, this is permissible with excess and with equality. And this is the closest of the opinions in this issue, especially with the difference in type.
The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended.
إنما الأعمال بالنّيات وإنما لكل امرئ ما نوىThe questioner : Which is stronger?
The Shaykh : How? The stronger position is that it is distributed as fay'. We mentioned three aspects that indicate that the stronger position is the one that says it is distributed as fay'.
"The Chapter on the Zakah of the Two Currencies" "The two currencies" is the dual of naqd, meaning that which is coined, because naqd means giving, and gold and silver are not giving, but they are given. So naqd means that which is coined, and it refers to gold and silver. Accordingly, copper coins are not currency in the terminology of the jurists because they are neither gold nor silver. Therefore, the scholars differed on whether there is riba in them or not, and whether there is zakah in them absolutely, or whether they are commodities such that if one intends to trade with them, there is zakah, and if not, there is none? Here are two great and important issues. The first is whether there is zakah in them absolutely and that they are in the ruling of currency, or not, unless one intends to trade with them because they are commodities? This is one issue. The second issue is whether riba applies to them or not? Both are two great issues that require deep clarification. It is known that paper money is considered to be from the copper coins or from the two currencies?
The questioner : The copper coins.
The Shaykh : From the copper coins, because they are a substitute for the two currencies, and the two currencies are exchanged for them. So whoever says that copper coins are commodities says that zakah is not obligatory in them unless they are intended for trade. Accordingly, if a person has a million qirsh or a million of a million of qirsh, there is no zakah on him. And if he exchanges ten for twenty of these copper coins, it is permissible, whether he takes possession of them in the session of the contract or the taking possession is delayed, just as if he exchanges a garment for two garments, it is permissible even if the taking possession is delayed. But this opinion, if we were to adopt it, would be problematic. It would mean that most of the merchants today, yes, who have liquidity in dirhams, would have no zakah on them. And the banks would not be usurious, because what they mostly deal in is these paper currencies, the existing currency.
And I have read a paper titled "Persuading the Souls to Classify the Anwaat Currency with the Copper Coin Currency". The Anwaat is paper, but I do not think that a scholar would settle on this opinion because of the false implication that there is no riba among people today, because most of their dealings are with what? With paper money. And that there is no zakah on one who owns millions of millions of paper money unless he intends to trade with it.
The second opinion is that these copper coins are in the position of currency regarding the obligation of zakah, and that zakah is necessary for them to enter into the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted
Take, [O, Muhammad], from their wealth a charity
خذ من أموالهم صدقةthen teach them that Allah has made it obligatory for them to pay the Zakat from their property
أعلِمهم أن الله افترض عليهم صدقة في أموالهمWhat remains for us is the issue of riba. As for riba, whoever says that they are commodities, what does he say? That riba does not apply to them, neither riba al-fadl nor riba al-nasi'ah, just as commodities: exchanging a garment for two garments, or three, or ten, or a camel for two camels, there is no harm in it, whether the taking possession is hastened or delayed. So likewise, these currencies, exchanging some with some, there is no riba in it. It is permissible for me to take from you one hundred dollars for four hundred riyals for a year, or one thousand riyals for one thousand and two hundred for a year, because riba does not apply to them. And this opinion also has considerations, because people today see these currencies in the position of what? Currency. They do not distinguish in them except a slight distinction. And some of them hold that riba al-nasi'ah applies to them, but not riba al-fadl. Riba al-nasi'ah but not riba al-fadl. He says that if you exchange some with some with a delay in taking possession, this is forbidden, whether you exchange them with equality or with excess. And if you exchange some with some in cash, taking possession in the session of the contract, this is permissible with excess and with equality. And this is the closest of the opinions in this issue, especially with the difference in type.