Buloogh al-Maram – The Book of Zakah, Lesson 10 – Hadeeth 499-500
Channel: Tim Humble
Series: Tim Humble – Buloogh al-Maram
File Size: 31.70MB
Follow me see one
Caller Tune in howdy San Juan
Ville alameen wa salatu salam ala
nabina Muhammad Allah and he also happy as
we begin or as always with the praise of Eliza gel, Ambassador Eliza gel to exalt dimension and grand peace to our messenger Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, his family and his companions. We're continuing on with our discussion on the ideas of the book of Zakah from bull Omar on baby mama have hijo alesco oni Rahim Allah to Allah. This is our 10th lesson lesson number 10 in the book of soccer, and we've reached the Hadeeth which is numbered in the English translation 499 one I'm going to show a IV he enjoyed the hero Viola Hall and an attempt at it and nebia solahart he was sent them one to let her wifia dignity her miskatonic mean that for Karla her Arturo clean as
occurred to her that Pilate Allah color as a rookie I knew so where I can learn will be Hema yo Mel piano coo Rainey me now for Alcott Houma Rosetta Weisner de Who are we also have not had was Kim Min Heidi theI Asia total the Aloha now
the translation of the Hadeeth it is narrated from an evolutionary from his father from his grandfather, while the Allahu taala and that a woman came to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam accompanied by a daughter of hers. In her daughter's hand, were two bracelets made of gold. He said to her, have you given Zakah on those? She replied, No. He said, Would it please you for a lot in circle your wrists with two bangles of fire on the Day of Resurrection. So she gave them away. It was narrated by the three and it's chain is strong. And it was also declared authentic biohacking from the Hadees of Ayesha rhodiola.
So let's start with the meaning of the words in this hadith. So first of all, the beginning of the Heidi's a chain of the hottie that is mentioned when I met him new tribe, and a B, he and God, we've mentioned this before.
It this particular chain is a well known chain, within Hadith. And it's a chain about which the scholars differed because of the issue of who the grandfather is. Because the wording of it says from American shape from his father, from his grandfather.
The question is, who is the grandfather? Is it the grandfather of Mr. Or the grandfather of his father? And the correct opinion is that it is the grandfather of his father. It's not here it's not Mr. narrating from his own grandfather. Rather Armaan reads from his father, who narrates from his grandfather either the grandfather of amels father, his great grandfather, who is who is Abdullayev and I'm even allows all the Allahu and Homer I believe in our model, even us. So the chain is authentic.
This this chain of American short A and B E and j d.
And the Hadith tells us that a woman she came to the Prophet sighs accompanied by a daughter of hers and in the daughter's hand work miska tan miska or miskatonic to have something and it's to miska miska is a bracelet or a bangle and likewise in the Hadeeth car at which the profits item said to car The car is also refers to a bangle
so two bracelets that were made of gold, the profitsystem said have you give us a cat on but have you given Zakat on those she repaid? No. He said will it please you for a lot in circle? I encircle your wrists with two bangles of fire cure me now. Two bangles of fire on the Day of Resurrection.
Then the statement for Alcott Huma, she gave them away. In some of the translations it mentions she threw them away. And that's not the correct understanding of the word for Ellicott Huma, maybe literally, you can use the word elkaar to mean throwing something away but it
Doesn't fit within the meaning of the Hadith and it doesn't fit with the other wordings of the Hadith, because in another wording of the Hadith, it is mentioned for Alcott, Houma, Elan Nabi sallallahu, alayhi wa sallam will call it Houma. Lila has his origin, what he Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam,
she cast them off, and she took them off. And she passed them to the Prophet sallallahu earlier said, and she said they are for Allah, mighty and majestic and His Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. So sometimes you might read in some of the translations of this Hadith, that the the this hobby of the woman, she threw them away. And someone might understand from this, that it's there's nothing wrong with throwing away valuable objects just she just threw them away out of disgust or out of anger. That or out of sorrow or regret. She just took them and threw them, throw them away, threw them in the bin. That's how some of the translators translated this hadith that I found, and
it's not correct. The correct translation of Ellicott Houma is that she gave them to the Prophet sallallahu. He she cast them off towards the prophet SAW, I said she didn't throw them away. She took them and she threw and she passed them towards the prophets isolation, she cast them off, in the direction of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam and she said they are for Allah, and His Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. As for the statement of a habit of Agile that it was narrated by the three, the three like this, he said roll salata was narrated by the three, then the meaning of the three here is about out and unnecessary an activity. In other words, the three is the four
without even measure the force on it without sunon measure. So a Buddha would say an activity
and the Hadith was declared authentic by Al Hakim from the hadith of Arusha. This hadith of Isaiah is also narrated by Abu Dawood
and this hadith of Ayesha isn't the same Hadith. It isn't the same Hadith,
the hadith of eyeshadow, the love wine, and it's not the same story.
The wording of the Hadith is de la la Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam for our fee or for our fee.
or in the narration of our code for our fee, Eddie fetter heart mean work for Carla had Aisha
call it a call to center to hoonah at ASEAN Oh laka jasola la color Add to add Dean as a character Han
called, call it call it cool to lab.
Our Masha Allah homothetic call he has put him in enough.
The narration from the hadith of Isaiah. The Hadees we said is narrated by a widowed by Al Hakim by Albay hockey also. And that is that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam entered the place where I was and he saw a necklace in my hand.
Or he saw rings in my hand in integration of Abu Dhabi dimensions. They were rings made of silver. He said, What is this? Or Ayesha? She said, I made them to beautify myself for you or messenger of Allah. He said, Have you paid Zakat on them? She said, I said no, or what Allah willed of that meaning I said no or something similar to that.
He said they are enough for you to enter the fire. They are enough for you to enter the fire he has put him in and now they are enough that would be enough to cause you to enter
We'll move on to Heidi number 500. And then we'll go back to the actual messala with the actual issue of Zika on jewelry. The next Heidi, why don't we celebrate all of your love wearing her under her Can you tell us who are borhan mean the hub
for Karla tiara Salalah I can zone who for call, either a date is a character who Felisa be Ken's grower who are widowed what Dr. Courtney was a whole hacking.
It's narrated from selama May Allah be pleased with her that she would wear white jewelry any jewelry made of gold. That was very, it's called. It's called our bar
because it's very, very, it's very white in color, like bright in color. She said O Messenger of a lot. Is it hoarded treasure. He said, If you pay this
A car drew upon it. It is not hoarded treasure. It was created by without doing a thorough cottony and it was declared authentic by Al Hakim. As for some of the words in the Hadith hold our hand is the pool of water.
And water is a kind of jewelry that was originally made from silver, and then later on from gold, and it was given the name because of its glittering white appearance. As for the word icons on who is it hoarded treasure. The word Ken's means treasure. But the context here is the is like the ayah in Surah. Two Toba or the ayat in sort of Toba will lead in a new zone at the harbor will feel better while our young Fukunaga feasibility law He further should be either been Aleem, yo yo ma la haffi narrow jahannam for to qua Bihar jiba homogeny boom over whom had an icon as totally unforeseen konforlu Quantum techniques own
those who hoard gold and silver and don't spend it in the way of Allah give them tidings of a painful punishment on the day when it will be heated in the fire of hell. And their foreheads and their sides and their backs will be seared with it. This is what you hoarded for yourselves. So taste what you used to hold. Now this ayah requires
and the explanation can be found in suhaila Buhari model Marla any in the form of tight tightly what I look for,
from Abdullah in our model, and that what that means is that it doesn't inside Buhari it doesn't come with a completed chain. And Buhari mentioned it without the complete chain. But the Hadith is authentic.
From Abdullah bin Sharma, or the author from Abdullah bin Omar is authentic, that Abdullah bin Armando rates that these ayat were revealed before the ayat of Zika.
And when the ayat of zakaah were revealed, Allah made zecca the means of purifying wealth. So what that means is that this is about the one who holds gold and silver.
Originally, it was not allowed for anyone to save up or,
or or keep with them a large amount of golden silver
without spending it in charity.
However, when the ruling of Zechariah came along, it came the case that you are allowed to keep whatever gold and silver you wish, but you just have to pay there's a cap on it.
So the word Ken's in the eye, and even later on in ahaadeeth is used to denote the wealth that Zakah is not paid upon, that it's hoarded treasure. In the beginning, it wasn't allowed to hoard any large amounts of gold and silver. I wasn't allowed to hold gold and silver. When the ruling of zakka came it became more simple than that. Simply you can save or keep with you whatever you wish, but you have to pay the Zakat upon it.
And it became simple the ruling became easier in that way. But the word kenz is still used to refer to the wealth which the car is not paid upon. Because this ayah in itself.
It's not so much of the AI is abrogated the answer to tilbyr. It's not abrogated in that way. But the IR simply became or was clarified and explained and given more specific details from the rulings of zecca. So the ruling of zakka now specifies that the welfare is hoarded is the wealth of Zakat is not paid upon. And that explains the hiraeth in which on selama rhodiola and how she asked a Kansan, who is this considered to be hoarded wealth, ie does it fall under the ruling of hoarded wealth that is mentioned in sort of tober we said I, between Ayah number 34 and 35. So the prophets lie Selim told her that if there's a car is paid on it, it's not hoarded treasure.
It doesn't fall under what is mentioned in the chart in sort of October.
So when we take these two Hadith, the question is, why did Allah Mohammed habitable hijaab bring these heidy in Kitab zakka. What was the connection of these two Hadees to keytab is that the connection is the explanation of whether or not Zakah is due upon jewelry, and specifically, we're going to talk about permissible jewelry.
used for personal purposes. So that is two there are two conditions in this discussion that we're going to have. The first condition is that the jewelry should be permissible.
We're not going to talk about haram jewelry, haram jewelry could be like a gold ring for a man. For example. That would be hard on Julie. We're not going to talk about the the jewelry which is haram, that's a different mess lF here completely, nor are we going to talk about the jewelry which is used for trade, someone who has a jewelry shop, they buy and sell jewelry. We're going to talk about the jewelry, which is permissible.
And it's used for personal purposes.
There are four opinions among the scholars on this particular issue of which I'm only going to mention two, because two of them are the most important. And two of them are the opinions which really the issue comes back to two opinions even though there are four opinions in the in this issue, but we're going to focus upon two of them. The first opinion is that there is no zeca do upon permissible jewelry used for personal reasons.
And this is the opinion of the molokhia the Sheffield ear, the high Nabila even Abdullah bottle from among the molokhia he said this is the opinion of Malik and his companions did not differ, he said the opinion of Malik in his camp and his companions did not differ in holding that jewelry used by women has no xikar do upon it. And this is what was practiced in Medina likewise and no he is much more vocal gamma in a more honey hijos alicona among the chef area for a no fee from the chef area, and then hijabi Kodama gahanna Villa, they also mentioned that the opinion of the madhhab
is that the there is no record you upon jewelry, which is permissible used for personal reasons.
The second opinion, the second opinion is that there is a kaiju upon it. And this is the opinion of the HANA fees. And it is one of the two opinions from a share therapy and an aeration for money management. And by now I think you're familiar with the fact that within the med hub, within any method, it's very common you find other opinions, you find secondary opinions, or you find a
you find a report from the Imam mentioning this, but it isn't taken as perhaps the core of the madhhab. It's not taken as the standard opinion in the method. However, it is still an opinion that exists within it. So it is one of the two opinions reported from a share very and it is an aeration from aluminum Achmad. But the well known in terms of the modality is that this is the position of Abu hanifa.
So what did the two parties use? or How did they explain these two highlife?
So, first of all, the interesting thing is when you look at the evidences put forward by the two different groups, those who said there is no Zika and those who said there is a car, you find that broadly speaking, they generally put forward the same evidences.
That's interesting, because that shows you that primarily, the difference of opinion is more in how we understand the evidence, rather than them there being different evidences on both sides.
So for example, both of them both of these two groups quoted the IEA in sort of the Toba that we mentioned
those who said there is no Zika they said the i in sort of the Toba
the I inserted Toba in mentions while Yun fake una FISA para la, they don't spend that money for the sake of Allah. They hoard it and they don't spend it. They said this doesn't include jewelry, because jewelry is not something which is spent. What is spent is money. So they said that jewelry is not spent. So it's not included in the hoarding that is mentioned in sort of October. As for the other party. They said that the iron soldier to Toba is general in all kinds of wealth, of which jewelry is one kind.
Likewise, they both quoted the ahaadeeth about the generality of gold and of zecca on gold and silver. We've spoken about some of these Hadeeth in the past.
They both quoted these and they said again that those who said that there is nausicaa
They said that these are Heidi to talk about gold and silver are talking about gold and silver coins, gold and silver money. But they're not talking about everything made from gold and silver. The other side they said no, they are talking about at their, their their general about all kinds of gold and silver, whether it's jewelry or whether it's money, whether it's minted or whether it's not minted.
They also both quoted
several thought from the Sahaba while the Allahu anhu.
For example, it is narrated from jabber and from our shot of the Allahu Allahu Allah and from a smell of the Allahu anhu that they did not see that there was any xikar do upon jewelry, but hold on a second. Those who are following closely are going to say, didn't we just caught a hadith from Asia, in which the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam specifically said to Ayesha specifically said to eyeshadow, viola and her here has spoken and none of this would be enough for you to enter to enter the fire. How do you explain that?
Along with that narration that I should did not use to pay there's a cap on jewelry. How do you reconcile between those two things? Again, those people who said that there is nausicaa do upon it. Some of them said the height of attache is weak. The height either I showed that the prophets have said that it's enough for you to from the fire, it would be enough for you to go to the fire. Others among them said no. They said this is before
it was made permissible for a woman to wear gold jewelry or it was it was before the rulings of the soccer were given out.
The detailed rulings of the soccer were given out or it was before the the the permissibility of wearing gold jewelry for women.
However, how do we reconcile and which of these two opinions are we going to put forward there are other issues that they put forward
For example, those who held the opinion of Abu hanifa Rahim Allah to Allah, they also put forward the another narration from Ayesha, in which she used to pay
zakat upon jewelry.
So how do we reconcile between all of these?
I'm going to quote to you what they mean Rahim Allah to Allah he said, he said the obligation of Zakat on jewelry if it reaches the threshold each year. This is the meth hub of Abu hanifa. It's an aeration from Ahmed and one of the two opinions in the madhhab of the chef series. This is the correct opinion because of the evidence in the Quran, and the Sunnah, and the statements which indicated.
And I think if you look at the statement of shareholders, they mean, it shows you that really when you look at this issue,
you have two or three, authentic, clear Hadith that indicates a case to be paid upon jury,
you have two or three authentic hadith.
In response to those Hadees, you don't really have a strong response to those Hadith.
There are some of the scholars who consider them to be weak. But when we look at the Hadeeth, and we study the chains of narration, we believe that those Hadees are authentic, we think that this is the stronger opinion about these Hadees that they're authentic, especially when you add the different ideas together on this topic, the Hadees of a shot or the alarm, the Heidi selama rhodiola Anna, and before that, the very first Hadeeth that we took the hydro Abdullayev and I'm not
even a US or the Allahu, and Homer, all of these when you put them together, it's very difficult to argue the case that these Hadeeth a week rather these idea of our authentic.
Furthermore, when you look at the generality of the evidences, you see that the other evidences can be understood both ways. So it's possible to understand them that they are general and it's possible and include jewelry and it's possible to say they don't include jewelry. So when we have that possibility of taking an ayah more than one way, then when we actually find a hadith that explained that Zakah is drew upon jewelry, then in that case, we have to understand those ayat and those ahaadeeth in the context of the Heidi set that makes it obligatory upon jewelry.
Furthermore, with regard to eyeshadow, viola, and her there are multiple
Opinions narrated from her. There are there is obviously this Hadith of the Prophet salallahu alayhi wasallam there is the fact that she used to her nephews or her her nephews and from her nieces rather that she had nieces and that they didn't used to pay zakat upon the jewelry.
There is also another Heidi from Asia saying that there is no han it or another effort from Asia, saying that there's no harmony as long as the cat is paid. So when we have these different opinions from from a Sahabi, like that, that come with different viewpoints, we go back to the Hadith of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and authentic hadith of Aisha that she reported from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is stronger as an evidence to put forward in these different narrations from a shell of the ohana. Furthermore, there are other others among the Sahaba was narrated from a bloody Allah and then from others among the Sahaba, that they held the position of xikar being Jew
upon jewelry. So here, we don't find any that the Sahaba had a single understanding. And in that case, we also go back to the evidence and we find that the evidence is more strongly weighted in favor of giving Zakat upon upon jewelry. And that's why the statement of shareholders they mean where I'm allowed to Allah clarifies it in a nice way, that if it reaches the threshold each year,
then the evidence in the Quran that's the general evidence in the Quran, the general evidence in the Sunnah, along with the specific evidence that we've spoken from now in balumama, that we just spoke about, and the statements of the earth are go together, we put them all together, then there is no doubt that and the safer and the opinion that you feel confident with is the opinion of the Imam Abu hanifa Rahim Allah to Allah. And that is the opinion that Zakat is due upon jewellery This is the opinion that is the safer opinion is that opinion that you feel confident in, because of the authentic hadith that were brought in this regard. And because of the fact that when you balance up
all of the different opinions in the issue, you don't find the that the other opinions have the same kind of strength in it to, to sort of counter or to provide an answer to these ahaadeeth. So we think that the correct opinion is that Zakat is due upon jewelry, if it reaches any sub. But this is another issue as well, the issue of it reaching the threshold, because these are highly in of themselves don't mention anything about threshold,
the hadith of ama Raven tribe, and Abby and JD Raja Abdullah amaura. House, Ravi Allahumma. And Heidi after it have on selama. Neither of them mentioned a threshold, and it's unlikely that these bangles
reached the threshold. And yet the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam Indians indicated as a car that was drew upon them, likewise, the height of each of the two rings, it's not really conceivable that those two rings on their own would have reached the threshold. For this account or these few rings that I share Hydra, viola Anna would have reached the threshold for the zecca bearing in mind that the threshold for the xikar is the pure metal in other words, 595 grams of silver, if there's silver in there, and there's let's say like
a Ruby or an emerald, or something like that, or a diamond, the rubies and emeralds and the diamonds, the weight of them is not counted, all that is counted is the weight of the silver itself, or the weight of the gold itself 85 grams of gold. So it's not usually Oh, it doesn't come to mind that it's likely that those that that jewelry by itself
had reached the threshold. So for this reason, some of the scholars they mentioned that it seems from the Hadeeth itself, that the threshold is not to be taken into account at all jewelry is to be paid for carpet. However, we believe that when you take all of the evidences together, and you look at generally the statement about the profits, about gold and silver, and the fact that he didn't make any specific allowance for jewelry, you have to understand that Heidi's of jewelry in light of the general idea about gold and silver, because jewelry is not anything different from gold and silver anyway and it comes into the same ruling the same amount, the same percentage as gold and
silver. And so we say that like ship with a mean said Rahim Allah to Allah and also chefman bas Rahim, Allah to Allah said as well, that the threshold is to be given consideration. In other words, it's only when the jewelry meets the threshold and he saw that the car is due upon it
So if a person has 85 grams of gold,
and that can include their jewelry that they use, then the the xikar becomes due. And if the silver reaches 595 grams, and there's a copper comes due. And there's no consideration given to precious stones, like diamonds, rubies, emeralds, and so on, there's no consideration given to them. If it's a mix of silver and something else, it's only the pure metal, the weight of the pure metal that is given consideration. So here, this is the this is their opinion or the correct opinion that we believe analyzer generals best on the issue of jewelry is that sacar is drew upon jewelry, if it reaches the threshold, if it reaches a threshold, if the person, the gold and the silver that the
person possesses either gold or silver reaches the minimum threshold, inclusive of the jewelry that they have for personal use, there remains one issue that we want to talk about, which is sometimes it comes a lot in this particular issue of jewelry, is that a person might ask, What if I don't have any money to be able to pay the Zakah on that jewelry? This is an issue a lot of people mentioned. And the reason people often mention it is it's quite common that a lady might have jewelry she owns, but she might not have money of her own to pay zakat upon that jewelry.
Two issues come up here. First of all, can someone else pay this account on her behalf?
Can her husband pay on her behalf? The answer to that is he can he's not obliged to.
He can't be it's not his responsibility to pay it on her behalf. However, the condition is he has to inform her of his intention to pay the Zakat on her behalf before he pays it. Because she has to have the intention to give this a cup. I give an example of that. There's a woman she has some gold jewelry that reaches the threshold. And she doesn't have any money to pay her car. She says to her husband, will you pay this a cow the husband goes let's say for example, the husband doesn't ask he just goes and pays Hezekiah. She, in the best of her knowledge has not paid soccer. She knows that it's true upon her. But she hasn't paid it because she hasn't had the intention to pit. So it's
required for her husband before he pays it to say to her that I'm going to pay zakat on your behalf for the jewelry that you have.
And as we said it's not the husband's right. It's not forced or it's not the husband's obligation to do so. It's a certificate from him. But it's acceptable as long as she has the intention in it in he says to her that is that okay? I'm going to give this a call on your behalf. She says Yeah, can you give us a comment about my behalf. This is for Zakat as as a Nazi capital, Federal Capital federal is a different ruling. But the other types of soccer, the normal soccer, someone can pay it on your behalf. But you have to have knowledge of it before it happens.
That's the first issue people ask. The second issue is what if the husband doesn't want to do that? He says your responsibility is your jewelry choza your responsibility. then in this case, she's obliged to sell some of the jewelry in order to get enough money to pay the soccer. She can't just keep the jewelry and say that I'm not going to pay the car this year. Because I don't have any cash available to me. Rather she should sell part of her jewelry in order to have the cash to pay the car from that is to the best of her ability. So that those are the main issues relating to the car and jewelry, from this hadith and inshallah to Allah we're going to stop there and be eaten in light
Allah we're going to talk in the next episode about trade goods, about old ecthr trade goods that's going to come in the next Hadeeth inshallah that's what ally made easy for us to mention. Analyze which animals best or Salatu was Salam ala nabina Muhammad Ali, he was happy engineering
Jazakallah Heron for watching. Please subscribe, share and you can visit Mohammed tim.com