The Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen said: "The second point: that there is no zakah due on clothing in the first place.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The second point: that there is no zakah due on clothing in the first place, so zakah is not obligatory on it or dropped based on intention; rather, the ruling regarding it is singular, which is that zakah is not obligatory. Therefore, the implication of analogical reasoning is that the ruling regarding jewelry should be singular.
The Shaykh : Do you have it...? Glory be to Allah.
And the second point is that there is no zakah due on clothing in the first place, so zakah is not obligatory on it or dropped based on intention, like gold and silver according to their claim: if it is intended for jewelry, it is dropped, and if it is intended for something else, it is not dropped. Therefore, the implication of analogical reasoning is that zakah is not obligatory. How is the implication of analogical reasoning that the ruling regarding jewelry should be singular, which is that zakah is obligatory, whether it is intended for adornment or not? What do you have?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The second point is that there is no zakah due on clothing in the first place, and what comes after that?
The questioner : So zakah is not obligatory on it or dropped based on intention; rather, the ruling regarding it is singular, which is that zakah is not obligatory, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is not dropped; rather, the ruling is that zakah is not obligatory. Write it down. So, after the phrase "that zakah is not obligatory," the implication of analogical reasoning, do you have the opinion based on intention? Let me read it to you.
The second point is that there is no zakah due on clothing in the first place, so zakah is not obligatory on it or dropped based on intention. Shall I read? Okay, and the ruling regarding it is singular, which is that zakah is not obligatory, so the implication of analogical reasoning is that it is not.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ... and it is that zakah is not obligatory, so the implication of analogical reasoning—do you have this?—so the implication of analogical reasoning is that the ruling regarding jewelry should be singular, which is that zakah is obligatory...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That is, the ruling regarding jewelry should be singular, which is that zakah is obligatory, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else, yes.
The questioner : So the implication of analogical reasoning is that the ruling regarding jewelry should be singular, which is that zakah is obligatory, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else, just as the ruling regarding clothing is singular: there is no zakah on it, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else. And the objection regarding...
The Shaykh : That is, in the sense that we refer each of them to its origin, so we say: the origin regarding clothing is that there is no zakah, so the ruling regarding it is singular, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else.
The origin regarding jewelry is that there is zakah, so it is obligatory on it, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else, yes.
The questioner : And the objection that zakah is obligatory on it when it is merchandise does not hold, because in that case, the zakah is on its value.
The third point: It should be asked, what is the analogical reasoning intended to reconcile jewelry prepared for use with clothing prepared for it? Is it the analogy of equivalence or the analogy of reversal?
The Shaykh : Do you have it like this? What is the analogical reasoning that is intended to reconcile, and do you have "intended to reconcile"?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Come on, the meaning is the same, yes.
The questioner : If it is said to be the analogy of equivalence, it is replied: This is only valid if zakah was obligatory on clothing before it was prepared for wearing and use, and then zakah was dropped after it was prepared, so that the branch and the origin would be equal in ruling. And if it is said: it is the analogy of reversal, it is replied: This is only valid if zakah is not obligatory on clothing when it is not prepared for wearing, and it is obligatory when it is prepared for wearing, for this is the reverse of the ruling regarding jewelry according to those who distinguish between jewelry prepared for wearing and other jewelry.
The Shaykh : Is this from your bag?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Do you have it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : In any case, it is good, meaning we write it now.
The questioner : We didn't bring the bag, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : I say we didn't bring the bag today.
The Shaykh : Glory be to... yes, it was said this? For this is the reverse of the ruling regarding jewelry, fill it in for him.
The questioner : Closer to me, O Shaykh, the microphone.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Shall I dictate it with the microphone?
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : I say shall I dictate it with the microphone.
The Shaykh : Okay, fine, regarding jewelry according to those who distinguish between.
The questioner : For this is the reverse of the ruling regarding jewelry according to those who distinguish between jewelry prepared for wearing and other jewelry.
The Shaykh : Okay, are we finished?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I don't know, did you all write it?
The questioner : For this is the reverse of the ruling regarding jewelry according to those who distinguish between jewelry prepared for wearing and other jewelry.
The Shaykh : Yes, the third point: It should be asked, what is the analogical reasoning intended to reconcile jewelry prepared for use with clothing prepared for it? Is it the analogy of equivalence or the analogy of reversal? Because analogical reasoning is divided into two types: the analogy of equivalence, which equates the branch and the origin in ruling, and the analogy of reversal, which gives the branch the opposite of the origin's ruling. And the analogy of reversal has been established by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)Sahih Muslim 1006 So this is called the analogy of reversal. So we say: what do you intend? If you say analogy of equivalence, it is replied: This is only valid if zakah was obligatory on clothing before it was prepared for wearing and use, and then it was dropped after it was prepared, so that the branch and the origin would be equal in ruling, and it is known that this is not the case.
In the name of Allah.
The Shaykh : Do you have it...? Glory be to Allah.
And the second point is that there is no zakah due on clothing in the first place, so zakah is not obligatory on it or dropped based on intention, like gold and silver according to their claim: if it is intended for jewelry, it is dropped, and if it is intended for something else, it is not dropped. Therefore, the implication of analogical reasoning is that zakah is not obligatory. How is the implication of analogical reasoning that the ruling regarding jewelry should be singular, which is that zakah is obligatory, whether it is intended for adornment or not? What do you have?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The second point is that there is no zakah due on clothing in the first place, and what comes after that?
The questioner : So zakah is not obligatory on it or dropped based on intention; rather, the ruling regarding it is singular, which is that zakah is not obligatory, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is not dropped; rather, the ruling is that zakah is not obligatory. Write it down. So, after the phrase "that zakah is not obligatory," the implication of analogical reasoning, do you have the opinion based on intention? Let me read it to you.
The second point is that there is no zakah due on clothing in the first place, so zakah is not obligatory on it or dropped based on intention. Shall I read? Okay, and the ruling regarding it is singular, which is that zakah is not obligatory, so the implication of analogical reasoning is that it is not.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ... and it is that zakah is not obligatory, so the implication of analogical reasoning—do you have this?—so the implication of analogical reasoning is that the ruling regarding jewelry should be singular, which is that zakah is obligatory...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That is, the ruling regarding jewelry should be singular, which is that zakah is obligatory, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else, yes.
The questioner : So the implication of analogical reasoning is that the ruling regarding jewelry should be singular, which is that zakah is obligatory, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else, just as the ruling regarding clothing is singular: there is no zakah on it, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else. And the objection regarding...
The Shaykh : That is, in the sense that we refer each of them to its origin, so we say: the origin regarding clothing is that there is no zakah, so the ruling regarding it is singular, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else.
The origin regarding jewelry is that there is zakah, so it is obligatory on it, whether it is prepared for wearing or for something else, yes.
The questioner : And the objection that zakah is obligatory on it when it is merchandise does not hold, because in that case, the zakah is on its value.
The third point: It should be asked, what is the analogical reasoning intended to reconcile jewelry prepared for use with clothing prepared for it? Is it the analogy of equivalence or the analogy of reversal?
The Shaykh : Do you have it like this? What is the analogical reasoning that is intended to reconcile, and do you have "intended to reconcile"?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Come on, the meaning is the same, yes.
The questioner : If it is said to be the analogy of equivalence, it is replied: This is only valid if zakah was obligatory on clothing before it was prepared for wearing and use, and then zakah was dropped after it was prepared, so that the branch and the origin would be equal in ruling. And if it is said: it is the analogy of reversal, it is replied: This is only valid if zakah is not obligatory on clothing when it is not prepared for wearing, and it is obligatory when it is prepared for wearing, for this is the reverse of the ruling regarding jewelry according to those who distinguish between jewelry prepared for wearing and other jewelry.
The Shaykh : Is this from your bag?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Do you have it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : In any case, it is good, meaning we write it now.
The questioner : We didn't bring the bag, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : I say we didn't bring the bag today.
The Shaykh : Glory be to... yes, it was said this? For this is the reverse of the ruling regarding jewelry, fill it in for him.
The questioner : Closer to me, O Shaykh, the microphone.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Shall I dictate it with the microphone?
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : I say shall I dictate it with the microphone.
The Shaykh : Okay, fine, regarding jewelry according to those who distinguish between.
The questioner : For this is the reverse of the ruling regarding jewelry according to those who distinguish between jewelry prepared for wearing and other jewelry.
The Shaykh : Okay, are we finished?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I don't know, did you all write it?
The questioner : For this is the reverse of the ruling regarding jewelry according to those who distinguish between jewelry prepared for wearing and other jewelry.
The Shaykh : Yes, the third point: It should be asked, what is the analogical reasoning intended to reconcile jewelry prepared for use with clothing prepared for it? Is it the analogy of equivalence or the analogy of reversal? Because analogical reasoning is divided into two types: the analogy of equivalence, which equates the branch and the origin in ruling, and the analogy of reversal, which gives the branch the opposite of the origin's ruling. And the analogy of reversal has been established by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
and in man's sexual Intercourse (with his wife, ) there is a Sadaqa. They (the Companions) said: Messenger of Allah, is there reward for him who satisfies his sexual passion among us? He said: Tell me, if he were to devote it to something forbidden, would it not be a sin on his part? Similarly, if he were to devote it to something lawful, he should have a reward.
وفي بُضْع أحدكم صدقة قالوا يا رسول الله أيأتي أحدُنا شهوته ويكون له فيها أجر؟ قال أرأيتم لو وضعها في حرام أكان عليه وزر؟ فكذلك إذا وضعها في الحلال كان له أجرIn the name of Allah.