The Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen said: "4- What Abu Dawud narrated, saying: Muhammad ibn Isa' narrated to us
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Fourth—What Abu Dawud narrated, saying: Muhammad ibn Isa' narrated to us, saying: 'Attab—meaning Ibn Bashir—narrated to us from Thabit ibn 'Ajlan, from 'Ata, from Umm Salama, who said: I used to wear gold ornaments...
The Shaykh : Ibn 'Ajlan, or is it 'Ajlan? Khalid?
The questioner : 'Ajlan, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : From Thabit ibn 'Ajlan, from 'Ata, from Umm Salama, who said: I used to wear gold ornaments, so I said: O Messenger of Allah, is this a treasure? He said:Sunan Abi Dawud 1564
The Shaykh : ... I have a yaa in my copy, but it appears to be a mix-up; it is "to be paid."
The questioner : He said:Sunan Abi Dawud 1564 Al-Bayhaqi, al-Daraqutni, and al-Hakim also narrated it, and al-Hakim said: It is authentic according to the conditions of al-Bukhari, though they did not include it in their collections. Al-Dhahabi also graded it as authentic. Al-Bayhaqi said: Ibn 'Ajlan narrated it uniquely. In *al-Tanqih*, it was said: This does not harm, for al-Bukhari narrated from Thabit ibn 'Ajlan, and Ibn Ma'in and al-Nasa'i deemed him trustworthy. The statement of 'Abd al-Haqq regarding him: is a statement no one else has made.
Ibn Daqiq said: And al-'Uqayli's statement regarding Thabit ibn 'Ajlan, "He is not corroborated in his hadith, which is an act of harshness". If it is said: Perhaps this was when wearing ornaments was prohibited, as those who exempt zakah from jewelry claim.
The answer is: This does not hold, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not prohibit wearing them, but rather approved of it, while warning against leaving off the zakah. If wearing them had been prohibited, he would have ordered them to be removed and warned against wearing them.
The Shaykh : Is that clear? This is one of the answers given by those who said there is no zakah. They said these hadiths are to be understood as referring to the time before the prohibition, meaning when wearing ornaments was forbidden. As you know, this requires two things: first, proving that a prohibition occurred, and second, proving its abrogation. If this is established, then it is possible to answer with this. Furthermore, this hadith does not indicate prohibition, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)—what did he do? He approved of wearing them and only obligated the zakah, warning those who did not pay it. So this answer does not hold. Yes.
The Shaykh : Ibn 'Ajlan, or is it 'Ajlan? Khalid?
The questioner : 'Ajlan, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : From Thabit ibn 'Ajlan, from 'Ata, from Umm Salama, who said: I used to wear gold ornaments, so I said: O Messenger of Allah, is this a treasure? He said:
whatever reaches a quantity on which zakat is payable is not a treasure (kanz) when the zakat is paid
ما بلغ أن تؤدّى زكاته فزُكّيThe Shaykh : ... I have a yaa in my copy, but it appears to be a mix-up; it is "to be paid."
The questioner : He said:
whatever reaches a quantity on which zakat is payable is not a treasure (kanz) when the zakat is paid.
ما بلغ أن تؤدّى زكاته فزُكّي فليس بكنزHis hadith is not to be relied upon
لا يُحتج بحديثهIbn Daqiq said: And al-'Uqayli's statement regarding Thabit ibn 'Ajlan, "He is not corroborated in his hadith, which is an act of harshness". If it is said: Perhaps this was when wearing ornaments was prohibited, as those who exempt zakah from jewelry claim.
The answer is: This does not hold, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not prohibit wearing them, but rather approved of it, while warning against leaving off the zakah. If wearing them had been prohibited, he would have ordered them to be removed and warned against wearing them.
The Shaykh : Is that clear? This is one of the answers given by those who said there is no zakah. They said these hadiths are to be understood as referring to the time before the prohibition, meaning when wearing ornaments was forbidden. As you know, this requires two things: first, proving that a prohibition occurred, and second, proving its abrogation. If this is established, then it is possible to answer with this. Furthermore, this hadith does not indicate prohibition, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)—what did he do? He approved of wearing them and only obligated the zakah, warning those who did not pay it. So this answer does not hold. Yes.