Continuation of the statement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen: "If it is said: In the wording of the hadith it is stated: (And in the silver coinage of two hundred dirhams, a quarter of a tenth) and in the hadith of Ali: (And nothing is due from you until you have twenty dinars), and the silver coinage is silver struck as currency, and likewise the dinar is a coin, and this is evidence for the restriction of the obligation of zakah to what is struck as currency. And jewelry is not of that. The answer is from two angles: The first is that those who do not obligate zakah on jewelry and argue with such a wording do not restrict the obligation of zakah to struck gold and silver, but they obligate it in raw gold and the like, even if it is not struck. And this is a contradiction on their part and arbitrariness, where they included in it what the wording does not cover, in their claim, and excluded from it the equivalent of what they included, in terms of the indication of the wording or its lack thereof."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It is not minted or struck as currency, but rather it is heaps of gold and silver, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That is, not minted, yes.
The questioner : And this is a contradiction on their part and arbitrariness, where they included in it what the wording does not cover, in their claim.
The Shaykh : Are you with us? One statement?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Strange!
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and what next?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : They do not restrict the obligation of zakah to the struck currency.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because I, what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, it means about a line, a line, write it down: Those who do not obligate zakah on jewelry and argue with such a wording do not restrict the obligation of zakah to struck gold and silver, but they obligate it in raw gold and the like, even if it is not struck, yes.
The questioner : And this is a contradiction on their part and arbitrariness, where they included in it what the wording does not cover, in their claim.
The Shaykh : What is it? What the wording does not cover, in their claim? No, raw gold and the like. They say raw gold is subject to zakah, while they argue for the negation of zakah on jewelry by his saying, what? In the silver coinage and the dinar. We say: You have obligated zakah on raw gold, while it is not silver coinage or a dinar, according to your statement, yes, and they excluded.
The questioner : And they excluded from it the equivalent of what they included, in terms of the indication of the wording...
The Shaykh : I have, and they excluded from it what is its equivalent.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And they excluded from it what is the equivalent of what they included, in terms of the indication of the wording upon it or its absence.
The questioner : And they excluded what is not covered by it, which is the equivalent of what they included.
The Shaykh : No, no, what we have is better, and what Khalid has is also fine, but what I have is better. And they excluded from it what is the equivalent of what they included, in terms of the indication of the wording upon it or its absence.
The questioner : And they excluded from it what is the equivalent of what they included, in terms of the indication of the wording upon it or its absence.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That is, not minted, yes.
The questioner : And this is a contradiction on their part and arbitrariness, where they included in it what the wording does not cover, in their claim.
The Shaykh : Are you with us? One statement?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Strange!
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and what next?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : They do not restrict the obligation of zakah to the struck currency.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because I, what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, it means about a line, a line, write it down: Those who do not obligate zakah on jewelry and argue with such a wording do not restrict the obligation of zakah to struck gold and silver, but they obligate it in raw gold and the like, even if it is not struck, yes.
The questioner : And this is a contradiction on their part and arbitrariness, where they included in it what the wording does not cover, in their claim.
The Shaykh : What is it? What the wording does not cover, in their claim? No, raw gold and the like. They say raw gold is subject to zakah, while they argue for the negation of zakah on jewelry by his saying, what? In the silver coinage and the dinar. We say: You have obligated zakah on raw gold, while it is not silver coinage or a dinar, according to your statement, yes, and they excluded.
The questioner : And they excluded from it the equivalent of what they included, in terms of the indication of the wording...
The Shaykh : I have, and they excluded from it what is its equivalent.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And they excluded from it what is the equivalent of what they included, in terms of the indication of the wording upon it or its absence.
The questioner : And they excluded what is not covered by it, which is the equivalent of what they included.
The Shaykh : No, no, what we have is better, and what Khalid has is also fine, but what I have is better. And they excluded from it what is the equivalent of what they included, in terms of the indication of the wording upon it or its absence.
The questioner : And they excluded from it what is the equivalent of what they included, in terms of the indication of the wording upon it or its absence.