Palestinian children waiting to receive cooked food in a charity kitchen (Reuters)
Sheikh Nasser al-Din al-Albani - may God Almighty have mercy on him - was asked about those who permit paying Zakat al-Fitr in cash. Following the doctrine of Abu Hanifa al-Numan - may God be pleased with him - he replied: “We say to these people: (If you dispute about anything, refer it to God and the Messenger, if you believe in God and the Last Day). The problem with these people is that they do not know the value of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, or to say the least: They do not know the value of the Qur’an and Sunnah as they know the value of the Imams.” Because they put the mind before transportation. Then Al-Albani decided that Zakat al-Fitr was imposed as “food for the poor,” that is, to feed them. Unlike general zakat, which was legislated to expand on the poor, and the hadith specified the types of food from which only Zakat al-Fitr must be paid.
Al-Albani’s answer - may God Almighty have mercy on him - reflects a pattern of thinking outside the craft of jurisprudence, and sometimes even hostile to it. Under the pretext of "following the text." This pattern was established by a sect, and is still alive among segments of people, but we mentioned Al-Albani at the beginning and because of his prominent impact on contemporary non-sectarianism, which is attributed to working with hadith and nothing else.
Our purpose in reopening the debate on this issue is not to address individuals, but rather to demonstrate the breadth of sectarian jurisprudential views that non-sectarians have sought over the past decades to narrow this view and confine it to their limited perspectives.
Expanding the minds of scholars like me is based on three issues:
The first: taking care of the jurisprudential dispute; Whoever increases his knowledge, his chest expands, his perceptions expand, and he understands every ruling or aspect, being aware of it. Especially since the jurisprudential differences, in general, and the disagreement regarding the issue of paying the values in zakat, in particular, is an old issue dating back to the first era.
Second: There are two paths in jurisprudence: a path that predominates the aspect of worship, and a path that predominates the aspect of reasoning, in which the mind has a stage, and these two paths are expressed with care for the word and care for meaning. These two approaches are found in jurisprudential schools of thought on scattered issues. You find a school of thought that predominates on the aspect of wording in one issue, and then you find it that dominates the side of meaning in another issue, which is it. For this reason, some contemporary Maqāsidians who engage in generalizations about this or that school of thought or who imagine that it is the same are widely discouraged. Care for meaning was absent in this or that school of thought, but the schools of thought were based on synthetic perspectives that required insight and coexistence to grasp their understandings.
Third: The payment of the value is disputed by two views: a view that excludes the zakat chapter on whether or not it is permissible to pay the value, and a view that distinguishes between the zakat al-fitr imposed on bodies, and other zakat imposed on money.
The first view holds that the chapter of zakat is one, and what is given to one branch must be excluded from the rest of the branches to achieve consistency.
The second consideration differentiates based on the issue of zakat: bodies or money? It is interesting to find these two views in one doctrine, as in the doctrine of Ahmed, for example. There are two narrations in it: the distinction between zakat and zakat al-fitr, and the settlement between them. Because they are one door. Whoever does not understand this narrowly views and restricts people in the debate. He took pains to argue with his opponents. Although dismissing the issues of the chapter and dealing with them in a consistent manner - allowing and prohibiting - has its purpose, and differentiation has its purpose as well.
Ataa bin Abi Rabah said: “Omar bin Al-Khattab - may God be pleased with him - used to take offers in charity from dirhams,” meaning from them.
Abu Hanifa, and it is a statement by Al-Shafi’i, and a narration on the authority of Ahmad, and the narration differed from Malik, so he permitted it once and prohibited it another time, and it is the doctrine of Sufyan Al-Thawri, Ishaq bin Rahawayh, Abu Thawr, Ibn Wahb, and Ibn Dina. This was also narrated on the authority of some of the Companions and followers, as we will explain later. This is what a group of jurists of the sects said, and it is the doctrine of Al-Bukhari. Imam Al-Juwayni Al-Shafi’i and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Hanbali made it permissible for need, and said: It is what is stated on the authority of Ahmad. Then the majority of jurists are of the view that what is obligatory in zakat on trade goods is to pay the value.
This opinion is based - upon examination - on textual and rational arguments, contrary to what was popularized by those with the intellectual style referred to at the beginning of this article. Because they wanted to deceive people that the issue is due to ignorance of the value of the book and the hadith, and it is important to point out that these inferences are old and recorded in the books of the sects, and not only in the books of the Hanafi school, as we find - for example - in Imam Ahmad Al-Qadouri Al-Hanafi (d. 428 AH), who devoted About ten pages to explain the Hanafi arguments and respond to the evidence of their opponents, as we find from Imam Al-Mawardi Al-Shafi’i (d. 450 AH), who elaborated on the Hanafi evidence, and as we also find from Imam Al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and others.
This opinion is based on the texts of the Qur’an, the Hadith, the work of the Salaf, and the jurisprudential reasoning, and this is explained in four matters:
The first: the generality mentioned in the Qur’an. God Almighty said: (Take charity from their wealth) [Al-Tawbah: 103] and he did not specify anything, so the generality was established.
The second: The hadith that Muadh said to the people of Yemen: Bring me a khamis or garment (i.e. a cloth garment) that I will take from you instead of corn and barley in charity, for it is easier for you and more beneficial for the immigrants in Medina. It is proven in Sahih Al-Bukhari from the hadith of Anas on the authority of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace -: “Whoever has the zakat amounting to a Jadha’ah [of camels] and he does not have [a Jadha’ah], and he has a Haqqah, then it will be taken from him, and whatever we have of two sheep or twenty dirhams is appropriate.” And other hadiths that some jurists mentioned in their books, and I did not explore them here.
Third: The work of the predecessors; It has been proven that paying the value in zakat is an act of the predecessors - may God be pleased with them - and this is the saying of Omar, his son Abdullah, Ibn Masoud, Ibn Abbas, Muadh, Tawoos, Ata’, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Sufyan Al-Thawri, and others from the honor of the righteous predecessors.
Ataa bin Abi Rabah said: “Omar bin Al-Khattab - may God be pleased with him - used to take the offerings in charity from dirhams,” that is, from them. Abu Ishaq Al-Subaie - one of the followers - told us what was done in his time, and he said - may God have mercy on him -: “I caught them giving in Ramadan [meaning al-Fitr] dirhams for the value of food.”
It was reported from Ibn Abbas that he said: “Whoever brings wheat [i.e., wheat] will be accepted from him, and whoever brings a stalk will be accepted from him, and whoever brings flour will be accepted from him.” And Omar bin Abdul Aziz used to say: “Whoever is in debt must pay half a dirham as Zakat al-Fitr.” ". Tawoos narrated that Muadh used to take the offerings with the price in zakat and put them in one category.
Fourth: Investigating the intent of the lawgiver, i.e. searching for the reason for the ruling, which is a reasonable meaning that the lawgiver intended behind the ruling. The Prophet - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - said: “Sufficiency them from the question of this day” (i.e. the day of breaking the fast), and this indicates the generality of what happens with it. release; Because he wanted them to be enriched with what would satisfy their needs. It is understood from this that the goal is to be kind to the poor, and this goal may be achieved by the eye or by value. Anything that satisfies their need is permissible.
But how do we understand the designation of specific categories in the hadith contained in this section? The answer is that it applies to a people who were not the owners of money, but their wealth was dates, and their sustenance was wheat and barley, and for that reason he - may God bless him and grant him peace - mentioned what was easier for them. The fact that the work was carried out by paying the value from the righteous predecessors indicates that they understood this meaning.
What can be concluded from all of this is that the discussion about paying the values in zakat is not an application of an opinion in opposition to the text (or working according to the “rule of the text” versus the “text”) as some have deluded, but rather it is a discussion about the interpretation of the texts and determining the intent of the law here.
The previous textual evidence, supported by the work of the predecessors, reinforced that this was an act of the text as well, and that the jurists differed in interpreting the texts into two schools of thought: a school of thought that believes that zakat here is worship and a right to God - the Almighty - and therefore the devotional meaning must predominate in it and stop at the text, and the text for him is that. The specified items.
Another school of thought believed that zakat is a form of worship on the one hand, but it is related to money and the rights of the poor on the other hand, and that the text contains the meaning of enriching the poor; Because of his saying - may God bless him and grant him peace - “Enrich them with begging on a day like this,” and enrichment occurs with these types, just as it occurs with value as well. Rather, with value it is more complete and more abundant. Because it is closer to paying the need; The text - according to him - is justified by enrichment.
Thus, this last doctrine was also based on the text and not by virtue of the text. However, the Shafi’i imams - for example - who said: “There is no entry for exchange in zakat in the origin of the doctrine,” that is, it is stopped - in terms of origin - at what is mentioned in the text. They also said: “If there is a clear need to pay the exchange, our ruling is With its permissibility, the principle upon which zakat is independent is to satisfy needs. If there is devotion behind this, then it is followed, but it is not unlikely that that devotion will fall due to need,” as Imam al-Juwayni said.
It is clear from this discussion the extent of the reductions that we have suffered - and are still suffering from - from the pattern of thinking with which we opened this article. Because of abandoning jurisprudence according to the method of jurists, and not investigating the meanings of the rulings deposited in the depths of the books of each of the doctrines of the imams of jurists, may God be pleased with them.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.