Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/250)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

However, the author stipulates that one must not be responsible for their maintenance—that is, one is not obligated to spend on them. If one is obligated to support them, then giving them zakah is not valid, because one would thereby be warding off a financial liability from oneself. If he gives them his zakah and they become self-sufficient through it, his duty to maintain them is waived. Thus, by paying zakah, he would be removing an obligation incumbent upon him. The principle is that a person may not use his zakah or expiation to discharge an obligation that is upon him.

An example concerning zakah: These are my poor brothers, while I am a wealthy man and am obliged to maintain them. I have zakah which, if I were to give it to them, would suffice them for a year, or for less or more. It is therefore not permissible for me to give it to them, because once they become self-sufficient through it, my obligation toward them is waived; thus, I would have used it to remove an obligation from myself.

An example concerning expiation: I am required to offer the expiation of feeding ten needy people. It is permissible for me, according to the sounder view, to give them lunch or dinner. Now, these poor people have come to me as guests, and a guest must be honored by being provided with lunch and dinner for the day and night of his stay. If I give these people lunch, intending it as my expiation, it does not suffice, because through this feeding I have discharged an obligation incumbent upon me. I am obliged to host them with lunch and dinner and with everything required in hosting. Thus, if I give them lunch and dinner and intend it as my expiation, I have discharged an obligation.

Question: If a father is poor, and his son has zakah but is unable to maintain his father, may he give it to his father?

The answer: He may give it to his father, because he is not obligated to support him: the son possesses nothing. In this case, he is not discharging an obligation, and the zakah will go either to the father or to someone else. So is it not more appropriate, rationally—let alone according to

لكن اشترط المؤلف ألاّ تلزمه مؤونتهم، أي: لا يلزمه الإنفاق عليهم، فإن لزمه الإنفاق عليهم فلا تجزئ؛ لأنه يدفع عن ماله ضرراً؛ لأنه إذا أعطاهم زكاته واغتنوا بها سقطت عنه نفقتهم، فصار ببذله الزكاة مسقطاً لواجب عليه، والقاعدة أنه لا يجوز للإنسان أن يسقط بزكاته أو بكفارته واجباً عليه. مثال الزكاة: هؤلاء إخوتي فقراء وأنا رجل غني، وتلزمني نفقتهم، وعندي زكاة إذا أعطيتهم إياها كفتهم لمدة سنة أو أقل أو أكثر، فلا يجوز أن أعطيهم إياها؛ لأنهم إذا اغتنوا بها سقط الواجب عني، فأسقطت بها واجباً علي. مثال الكفارة: علي كفارة إطعام عشرة مساكين، فيجوز أن أغديهم، أو أعشيهم على الصحيح، وهؤلاء الفقراء نزلوا أضيافاً علي، والضيف يجب إكرامه بغدائه وعشائه يومه وليلته، فغديت هؤلاء ونويتها كفارة، فلا يجزئ؛ لأنني بهذا الإطعام أسقطت واجباً علي؛ لأنه يجب علي أن أضيفهم بغداء وعشاء، وبكل ما يلزم في الضيافة، فإذا غديتهم وعشيتهم، ونويته كفارة علي، فقد أسقطت واجباً. مسألة: إذا كان الأب فقيراً، وعند الابن زكاة وهو عاجز عن نفقة أبيه، فهل يجوز أن يصرفها لأبيه؟ الجواب: يجوز أن يعطيها لوالده؛ لأنه لا تلزمه نفقته؛ لأن الابن لا يملك شيئاً، وهو هنا لا يسقط واجباً، والزكاة إما ستذهب إلى الوالد أو إلى غيره، فهل من الأولى عقلاً فضلاً عن