The Book of Zakah-08a
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Thirdly, from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father), as narrated by al-Mundhiri and al-Bayhaqi. Al-Shafi'i said: I do not know whether it is established from him or not.
Fourthly: From 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-'As, that he used to order the payment of zakah on the jewelry of his daughters and wives. This was mentioned in "al-Muhalla" from the route of Jarir ibn Hazim from 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father.
Fifthly: From 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), that she said: There is no harm in wearing jewelry if its zakah is paid. Al-Daraqutni narrated it from the hadith of 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb from 'Urwah from 'Aishah. However, Malik narrated in al-Muwatta from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father from 'Aishah "that she used to look after her brother's orphaned daughters in her care, and they had jewelry, so she did not pay zakah from their jewelry". Ibn Hajar said in "al-Takhlees" "It is possible to reconcile the two by saying that she considered zakah to be due on it, but did not consider it permissible to pay zakah absolutely from the property of orphans". End of quote. However, what is reported by Malik in al-Muwatta from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father, who said: "Aishah used to look after me and my maternal uncle, two orphans in her care, and she used to pay zakah from our property", refutes this reconciliation. Some said: It is possible to answer that she did not consider paying zakah from the property of orphans to be obligatory, so she would pay it sometimes and not pay it other times. This is what he said. Better than that is to answer with another approach, which is that the non-payment is an action, and an action does not have generality. It may be for reasons she considered to prevent the obligation of zakah, so it does not contradict the statement. And Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : Yes, this athar means that rules should be derived from it in the chapter of debate. 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said there is no harm in wearing jewelry if its zakah is paid. This indicates that paying zakah is necessary. However, Malik narrated in "al-Muwatta" with a more authentic chain than that from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father from 'Aishah that she used to look after her brother's orphaned daughters in her care, and they had jewelry, so she did not pay zakah from their jewelry. If she had considered it obligatory, she would have paid it, because the guardian is obligated to pay zakah on behalf of the one under his guardianship. For this reason, the scholars said that zakah is paid on behalf of the insane and the child by their guardian. Ibn Hajar said in "al-Talkhis" "Talkhis al-Habir fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Rafi'i al-Kabir", which is a good and excellent book that equals or approaches the book of al-Zayla'i, "Nasb al-Ra'yah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Hidayah", and both are good in this subject.
Ibn Hajar said in "al-Talkhis": "It is possible to reconcile the two by saying that she considered zakah to be due on it", meaning on the jewelry, "but did not consider it permissible to pay zakah absolutely from the property of orphans", based on the condition that reaching puberty and having intellect are required for the obligation of zakah, as is the madhhab of Abu Hanifah. Since the orphans had not reached puberty, according to this view, she would not pay zakah on the orphans in her care because she did not consider zakah obligatory on a child. This answer is undoubtedly sound, except that what is reported by Malik in "al-Muwatta" from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father, who said: "Aishah used to look after me and my maternal uncle, two orphans in her care, and she used to pay zakah from our property", refutes it. This indicates that she considered zakah obligatory on the property of orphans and that reaching puberty and having intellect are not conditions for its obligation. Some answered by saying it is possible to respond that she did not consider paying zakah from the property of orphans to be obligatory, so she would pay it sometimes and not pay it other times. This is what he said. This answer is questionable, because if she did not consider paying zakah obligatory on the property of orphans, it would not be permissible for her to pay it from it. If it were voluntary, voluntary payment is not permissible from the property of orphans. Is that clear? Because it is a gift, and the guardian has no right to make gifts from the property of the one under his guardianship. For this reason, it was mentioned previously that we said there is a difference between the permissibility of making gifts and the permissibility of disposing of property. Which is narrower? The permissibility of making gifts, because whoever is permitted to make gifts is permitted to dispose of property, but not vice versa. The guardian is permitted to dispose of the property of the one under his guardianship, but not permitted to make gifts from it.
In any case, this answer is questionable, because if she did not consider it obligatory but only voluntary, she would not have paid it from the property of the orphan. Yes, and better than that is to answer with another approach, which is that the non-payment is an action, and an action does not have generality. This is sometimes expressed by saying it is a specific case. If it is an action, it may be for reasons she considered to prevent the obligation of zakah. For example, she might have had a debt, and debt prevents the obligation of zakah according to some scholars. Or perhaps she paid it secretly and no one knew about it.
The important point is that an action does not have generality. It may be for reasons she considered to prevent the obligation of zakah, so she did not pay zakah. Yes. Good.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : But it is said she did not consider paying zakah from the property of orphans to be obligatory. This is the second answer.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So she used to pay zakah from our property.
The questioner : General...
The Shaykh : But two things were reported from her. The first thing is that she said there is zakah on jewelry. This is a statement. The non-payment of zakah on jewelry does not contradict the statement, because it is an action, and as we said at the end, an action may have reasons that prevent the obligation. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : In?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Why, what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The answers will come to us, if Allah wills, regarding... they will come.
The questioner : Shaykh... a second answer, better.
The Shaykh : Yes, the best is to answer with another approach, which is that the non-payment of zakah on the jewelry of the orphans is an action, so it does not contradict the statement. Meaning, she affirms the obligation of zakah.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Yes.
Fourthly: From 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-'As, that he used to order the payment of zakah on the jewelry of his daughters and wives. This was mentioned in "al-Muhalla" from the route of Jarir ibn Hazim from 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father.
Fifthly: From 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), that she said: There is no harm in wearing jewelry if its zakah is paid. Al-Daraqutni narrated it from the hadith of 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb from 'Urwah from 'Aishah. However, Malik narrated in al-Muwatta from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father from 'Aishah "that she used to look after her brother's orphaned daughters in her care, and they had jewelry, so she did not pay zakah from their jewelry". Ibn Hajar said in "al-Takhlees" "It is possible to reconcile the two by saying that she considered zakah to be due on it, but did not consider it permissible to pay zakah absolutely from the property of orphans". End of quote. However, what is reported by Malik in al-Muwatta from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father, who said: "Aishah used to look after me and my maternal uncle, two orphans in her care, and she used to pay zakah from our property", refutes this reconciliation. Some said: It is possible to answer that she did not consider paying zakah from the property of orphans to be obligatory, so she would pay it sometimes and not pay it other times. This is what he said. Better than that is to answer with another approach, which is that the non-payment is an action, and an action does not have generality. It may be for reasons she considered to prevent the obligation of zakah, so it does not contradict the statement. And Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : Yes, this athar means that rules should be derived from it in the chapter of debate. 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said there is no harm in wearing jewelry if its zakah is paid. This indicates that paying zakah is necessary. However, Malik narrated in "al-Muwatta" with a more authentic chain than that from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father from 'Aishah that she used to look after her brother's orphaned daughters in her care, and they had jewelry, so she did not pay zakah from their jewelry. If she had considered it obligatory, she would have paid it, because the guardian is obligated to pay zakah on behalf of the one under his guardianship. For this reason, the scholars said that zakah is paid on behalf of the insane and the child by their guardian. Ibn Hajar said in "al-Talkhis" "Talkhis al-Habir fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Rafi'i al-Kabir", which is a good and excellent book that equals or approaches the book of al-Zayla'i, "Nasb al-Ra'yah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Hidayah", and both are good in this subject.
Ibn Hajar said in "al-Talkhis": "It is possible to reconcile the two by saying that she considered zakah to be due on it", meaning on the jewelry, "but did not consider it permissible to pay zakah absolutely from the property of orphans", based on the condition that reaching puberty and having intellect are required for the obligation of zakah, as is the madhhab of Abu Hanifah. Since the orphans had not reached puberty, according to this view, she would not pay zakah on the orphans in her care because she did not consider zakah obligatory on a child. This answer is undoubtedly sound, except that what is reported by Malik in "al-Muwatta" from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim from his father, who said: "Aishah used to look after me and my maternal uncle, two orphans in her care, and she used to pay zakah from our property", refutes it. This indicates that she considered zakah obligatory on the property of orphans and that reaching puberty and having intellect are not conditions for its obligation. Some answered by saying it is possible to respond that she did not consider paying zakah from the property of orphans to be obligatory, so she would pay it sometimes and not pay it other times. This is what he said. This answer is questionable, because if she did not consider paying zakah obligatory on the property of orphans, it would not be permissible for her to pay it from it. If it were voluntary, voluntary payment is not permissible from the property of orphans. Is that clear? Because it is a gift, and the guardian has no right to make gifts from the property of the one under his guardianship. For this reason, it was mentioned previously that we said there is a difference between the permissibility of making gifts and the permissibility of disposing of property. Which is narrower? The permissibility of making gifts, because whoever is permitted to make gifts is permitted to dispose of property, but not vice versa. The guardian is permitted to dispose of the property of the one under his guardianship, but not permitted to make gifts from it.
In any case, this answer is questionable, because if she did not consider it obligatory but only voluntary, she would not have paid it from the property of the orphan. Yes, and better than that is to answer with another approach, which is that the non-payment is an action, and an action does not have generality. This is sometimes expressed by saying it is a specific case. If it is an action, it may be for reasons she considered to prevent the obligation of zakah. For example, she might have had a debt, and debt prevents the obligation of zakah according to some scholars. Or perhaps she paid it secretly and no one knew about it.
The important point is that an action does not have generality. It may be for reasons she considered to prevent the obligation of zakah, so she did not pay zakah. Yes. Good.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : But it is said she did not consider paying zakah from the property of orphans to be obligatory. This is the second answer.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So she used to pay zakah from our property.
The questioner : General...
The Shaykh : But two things were reported from her. The first thing is that she said there is zakah on jewelry. This is a statement. The non-payment of zakah on jewelry does not contradict the statement, because it is an action, and as we said at the end, an action may have reasons that prevent the obligation. Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : In?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Why, what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The answers will come to us, if Allah wills, regarding... they will come.
The questioner : Shaykh... a second answer, better.
The Shaykh : Yes, the best is to answer with another approach, which is that the non-payment of zakah on the jewelry of the orphans is an action, so it does not contradict the statement. Meaning, she affirms the obligation of zakah.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Yes.