المادة 142

المادة 142 - مسودة دستور دولة الخلافة | Quran Course

0% read · 14 min left

مسودة دستور دولة الخلافة Bookmark

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

المادة 142

Article 142

by Sheikh Taqiuddin An-Nabahani14 min readViewed 149 times

لا يجوز اكتناز المال، حتى وإن أُدّيت زكاته.

Hoarding of wealth is prohibited, even if Zakah is paid upon it.

دليلُه قولُ اللهِ تعالى:

Its evidence is the words of Allah (swt):

"وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلَا يُنْفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَبَشِّرْهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ" (التوبة: 34)، وهي دليل على تحريم اكتناز المال على الإطلاق. وإن كانت هذه الآية قد نزلت في شأن أهل الكتاب، فإن ألفاظها عامة، ونحن مخاطبون بها كما يتضح من أول الآية الذي يقول:

“And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah (swt) - give them tidings of a painful punishment.” (TMQ 9:34), which is an evidence for the unrestricted forbiddance of hoarding wealth. Though this verse was revealed to do with the People of the Book, its words are general, and we are addressed by them as is clear from the beginning of the verse which says:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْأَحْبَارِ وَالرُّهْبَانِ لَيَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ النَّاسِ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَيَصُدُّونَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ، وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ

“O you who have believed, indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of Allah (swt). And those who hoard gold and silver.” (TMQ 9:34).

قُتِلَ رجلٌ من أهل الصُّفَّة فوُجد في مِئزَره دينارٌ، فقال رسولُ الله ﷺ: «يُكوى به»، ثم مات آخرُ فوُجد عليه دينارانِ، فقال رسولُ الله ﷺ: «يُكوى بهما»... وهذا يعني أن كنزَ الذهب والفضة محرَّمٌ تحريمًا تامًّا، ولو كان دينارين أو حتى دينارًا واحدًا، ما دام يُكنَز، أي ادِّخارُ المال دون حاجةٍ إلى إنفاقه. وقد قال رسولُ الله ﷺ ذلك في حقِّ هذين الرجلين لأنهما كانا ممن يعيشون على الصدقة، ومع ذلك كان عندهما ذهبٌ، فقال: «يُكوى» و«يُكوى بهما»، مشيرًا إلى قولِه سبحانه: ﴿يَوْمَ يُحْمَىٰ عَلَيْهَا فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ فَتُكْوَىٰ بِهَا جِبَاهُهُمْ وَجُنُوبُهُمْ وَظُهُورُهُمْ﴾ [التوبة: ٣٥]، وهي من آيات الكنز؛ أي إنه كان يشير إلى الآيات الواردة في الكنز. وفي هذا دليلٌ على تحريم الكنز تحريمًا تامًّا شاملًا، سواءٌ بلغ المقدارَ الذي تجب فيه الزكاة أم لم يبلغه، وسواءٌ أُدِّيت زكاتُه أم لم تُؤدَّ؛ فكلُّ كنزٍ محرَّمٌ. ثالثًا: إن حرفَ العطف في قوله سبحانه: ﴿وَلَا يُنفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ﴾ [التوبة: ٣٤] يقابل قولَه سبحانه: ﴿وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ﴾ [التوبة: ٣٤]، فيدلُّ على أن الآية تتضمن حكمين: الأول كنزُ المال، والثاني عدمُ إنفاقه في سبيل الله؛ ونصُّ الآية يدلُّ على التهديد بعقوبةٍ شديدةٍ مرتبطةٍ بهذين الأمرين، أي للذين يكنزون الذهب والفضة ولا ينفقونهما في سبيل الله، فبشِّرهم بعذابٍ أليم. فيتبيّن بذلك أنّ من لا يكنز، لكنه لا يُنفق في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى)، داخلٌ في التهديد، وكذلك من ينفق في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى) ومع ذلك يكنز المال فهو أيضًا داخلٌ في التهديد. قال القرطبي: "ومن لا يكنز، ويمسك عن الإنفاق في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى) فيجب أن يكون كذلك". والمراد بقوله: "في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى)" في الآية هو الجهاد، لأنه ذُكر مع الإنفاق. فإذا اقترنت عبارة: "في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى)" بالإنفاق فمعناها الجهاد، إلا إذا وُجدت قرينة تصرفها عن هذا المعنى. وعليه فإن قوله: "ولا ينفقونها" لا يصلح دليلًا على أنهم إذا كنزوا المال وأنفقوا منه في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى) لم يدخلوا في العقوبة، إذ ليس معنى الآية: "والذين يكنزون الذهب والفضة ولا ينفقونها في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى) فبشّرهم بعذاب أليم" على أن الواو للتفسير، فيكون المعنى أنه إذا أُنفق المال المكنوز في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى) فلا عقوبة على الكانز. بل معنى الآية أن من يكنز فله عذاب أليم، ومن لا ينفق في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى) فله عذاب أليم. والواو هنا واو المغايرة لا واو التفسير. ولذلك فإن النهي عن الكنز مطلق، سواء أُنفق بعضه في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى) أم لم يُنفق، وأن مسألة النهي عن الكنز مسألة غير مسألة النهي عن عدم الإنفاق في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى). وبهذا يتبيّن بوضوح أن الآية تنهى عن كنز المال ولو أُدّيت زكاته ولو أُنفق منه في سبيل الله (سبحانه وتعالى).

“A man from the Ahl Al-Suffah died, and a Dinar was found in his garments (waist-wrap); the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “he will be burnt”, then another died and two Dinars were found on him, and the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “he will be burnt twice””, and this means that it is completely forbidden to hoard gold and silver, even if it was only two or even just one Dinar, as long as it is being hoarded, in other words, the storage of wealth without a need that it would be spent on. And the Messenger (saw) said that in respect to these two men because they were from those who used to live on charity and yet they had gold on them, and so he said: “he will be burnt” and: “he will be burnt twice”, alluding to His (swt) words: “The Day when it will be heated in the fire of Hell and seared therewith will be their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs.” (TMQ 9:35), which is part of the verses of hoarding; in other words, he was alluding to the verses regarding hoarding. This is an evidence for the complete, comprehensive forbiddance of hoarding irrespective of whether it amounted to the value which Zakah should be paid upon or not, and irrespective of whether Zakah was paid upon it or not; so any hoarding is prohibited. Third: The conjunction in His (swt) words: “And spend it not in the way of Allah (swt).” (TMQ 9:34) contrasts with His (swt) words: “And those who hoard gold and silver.” (TMQ 9:34) and thus indicating accordingly that the verse covers two rules: the first being the hoarding of wealth and the second the lack of spending in the path of Allah (swt). The text of the verse indicates the threat of a severe punishment connected to these two issues - in other words, for those who hoard gold and silver and those who do not spend them in the path of Allah (swt), then announce to them a severe punishment. Therefore, it becomes clear that he who does not hoard, but does not spend in the path of Allah (swt), is encompassed by the threat, and likewise the one who spends in the path of Allah (swt) and yet he hoards wealth is also encompassed by the threat. Al-Qurtubi said: “Whoever does not hoard, and withholds spending in the path of Allah (swt), must also be the same”. The intention of the words: “in the way of Allah (swt)” in the verse is Jihad, since it is mentioned alongside spending. When the words: “in the way of Allah (swt)” are connected to spending, then their meaning is Jihad, unless there is an indication found which takes it away from that meaning. Accordingly, the words: “and spend it not” are not suitable as an evidence that if they hoard wealth and spend from it in the path of Allah (swt) they are not included in the punishment, since the meaning of the verse is not, and whoever hoards wealth in that they do not spend it in the path of Allah (swt) then announce to them a severe punishment, with the conjunction being explanatory and so, therefore, if the hoarded wealth was spent in the path of Allah (swt), the hoarder would not be punished. Rather, the meaning of the verse is that whoever hoards then announce to them a punishment and whoever does not spend in the path of Allah (swt) then announce to them a punishment. The conjunction is a conjunction of dissimilarity and not explanatory. Therefore, the forbiddance of hoarding is unrestricted, irrespective of whether some of it was spent in the path of Allah (swt) or not, and the issue of the forbiddance of hoarding is a different issue than the forbiddance of not spending in the path of Allah (swt). Accordingly, it is clearly seen that the verse forbids hoarding wealth even if Zakah had been paid upon it and even if some had been spent in the path of Allah (swt).

﴿وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلَا يُنْفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ﴾ (التوبة: ٣٤)، فقال معاوية: «نزلت في أهل الكتاب»، فقلتُ: «نزلت فيهم وفينا»، وكان ذلك بيني وبينه. فكتب إلى عثمان يشكوني، فكتب إليّ عثمان أن أقدم المدينة، فقدمتها، فاجتمع الناس حولي كأنهم ما رأوني قبل ذلك، فذكرتُ ذلك لعثمان، فقال: «إن شئتَ تنحّيتَ فكنتَ قريبًا»، فهذا الذي أنزلني هذا المنزل، ولو أُمِّرَ عليّ حبشيٌّ لسمعتُ وأطعتُ. فالخلاف إذن بين أبي ذر ومعاوية كان في سبب نزول الآية، لا في معناها. ولو كان لدى معاوية أو عثمان (رضي الله عنه) حديثٌ صحيحٌ يذكر أن الزكاة إذا أُدِّيَتْ من المال لم يُعدّ ذلك المال كنزًا، لاحتجّ به معاوية على رأي أبي ذر فأسكته، أو لاحتجّ به عثمان (رضي الله عنه) فأسكته. وهذا يدل على أن عموم الآية وإطلاقها لم يكونا سببَ الخلاف بين معاوية وأبي ذر، وبين معاوية وعثمان (رضي الله عنه)، ولا يثبت أنهما كان لديهما حديثٌ يخالف ذلك.

“And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah (swt).” (TMQ 9:34) and so Mu’awiyah said: “This was revealed concerning the People of the Book” so I said: “It was revealed concerning them and us”, and this was the issue between us. So he wrote to Uthman complaining about me, and so Uthman wrote to me telling me to come to Madinah. I went there and the people gathered around me as though they had never seen me before. I mentioned this to Uthman, and he said: “If you wish, you can stay close”. This is what led me to this place, and if an Abyssinian presided over me, I would listen and obey”. Therefore, the difference between Abu Dharr and Mu’awiyah was regarding who the verse was revealed about, and not its meaning, and if Mu’awiyah or ‘Uthman (ra) had an authentic narration which mentioned that if Zakah was paid from a wealth it would not be considered a hoard, Mu’awiyah would have used it against Abu Dharr’s opinion and Abu Dharr would have been silenced or ‘Uthman (ra) would have used it to silence him. This indicates that the generality of the verse and its unrestricted nature was not the cause of difference between Mu’awiyah and Abu Dharr, and between Mu’awiyah and ‘Uthman (ra), and it is not confirmed that they had a narration which opposed that.

كنت ألبس الحُلِيّ من الذهب، فقلتُ: يا رسول الله ﷺ، أكَنزٌ هو؟ فقال: «ما بلغ أن تُؤدّى زكاتُه فزُكِّيَ فليس بكنز»، والكلمة الواردة في الحديث «الأَوْضاح»، وهي نوعٌ من الحُلِيّ. وقد جاء في القاموس المحيط: «الوَدَعُ... والأَوْضاح: حليٌّ من فضة، وجمعه أَوْضاح». وهذا الحديث ضعيفٌ، لأنّ ثابتَ بنَ عجلان مختلَفٌ فيه إذا انفرد بالرواية. وقال الذهبي في ترجمته: «ومن المناكير التي تُردّ على ثابت، حديثُ عطّاب عن عطاء عن أم سلمة». ومع ذلك، ولو صحّ، فهو مقصورٌ على الحُلِيّ الذي تلبسه النساء، ولا يُعدّ كنزًا إذا بلغ النصاب وأُدّيت زكاته. وهذا دليلٌ على وجوب الزكاة في الحلي وأنه مستثنى من عموم الاكتناز. وليس هذا الحديث صالحًا للاستدلال به على جواز اكتناز الحلي بعد أداء زكاته، من وجهين:

“I used to wear gold ornaments. I asked: Is that a treasure (Kanz), Messenger (saw) of Allah (swt)? He replied: whatever reaches a quantity on which Zakah is payable is not a treasure (Kanz) when the Zakah is paid”. The word used in the narration is Al-Awdhah, which is a type of jewellery. It is mentioned in the dictionary of Al-Muhit: “Al-Wadeh…and it is silver jewellery and its plural is Awdhah”. This narration is weak because Thabit b. Ajlan is controversial when he is the single narrator in a narration. Al-Dhahabi said regarding Thabit in his biography: From the narrations which are refuted from Thabit is the narration of ‘Attab from ‘Ata’ from Umm Salamah”. Despite that, even if it was authentic, it is limited to the jewellery which women wear, and is not considered to be a hoard if its value reaches the Nisab, and subsequently the Zakah on it had been paid. This is the evidence for the payment of Zakah upon jewellery and it being made an exception from the generality of hoarding. This narration is not suitable to be used as an evidence for the permissibility of hoarding if Zakah had been paid upon it, from two angles:

أولاً: هذا الحديث ورد جواباً عن سؤال، وكل نص يكون جواباً عن سؤال، أو وَرَد بخصوص واقعة معيّنة، فإنه يكون محصوراً بما وقع السؤال عنه، ومقصوراً على تلك الواقعة المعيّنة، ولا يُعدّ عامّاً في كل شيء، لأن الألفاظ متعلقة بالسؤال، أي بالواقعة المعيّنة، فهي خاصة ومقصورة على ذلك السؤال وتلك الواقعة، ولا تنطبق على ما وراءها. وبناءً على ذلك، فإن الحديث خاص بالحلي، فإذا وجبت الزكاة في الحلي جاز اكتنازه، أما غيره فلا يجوز. ولا يصح الاحتجاج بالقاعدة الشرعية: "العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب"، وأن الألفاظ هنا عامة فلا تختص بالحلي بل تشمله وغيره؛ وذلك لأن هذه القاعدة إنما هي في السبب، لا في الجواب عن سؤال أو في الواقعة المعيّنة. وهي قاعدة صحيحة، ونصّها يدل على أنها متعلقة بالسبب دون غيره، إذ تقول: "لا بخصوص السبب"، والفرق واضح بين السبب والواقعة المخصوصة، وبين السبب والجواب عن السؤال.

Firstly: This narration came as an answer to a question, and every text which is an answer to a question, or came regarding a specific subject, is necessarily limited to what the question was about, and to that specific subject, and it is not considered general for everything since the words are connected to the question, or in other words, to the specific subject, and so they are specific and limited to that question and subject and do not apply beyond them. Accordingly, the narration is specific to jewellery, and so if Zakah is paid upon jewellery it is permitted to hoard it and anything else is not permitted. It cannot be argued that the Shari’ah rule is: “the consideration is given to the generality of the words and not to the specification of the cause” and the words here are general and so they are not specific to jewellery and rather they encompass jewellery and anything else. This cannot be argued because this rule is for the cause, and not for the reply to a question or a specific subject. It is a correct rule and its text indicates that it is a rule for the cause and nothing else, since it says: “not to the specification of the cause”, and there is a difference between the cause and the specified subject, and between the cause and the reply to a question.

السبب هو أن تقع حادثة فتنزل فيها حكم شرعي، مثل سبب نزول قوله تعالى: ﴿وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ﴾ (الأحزاب: 36). وكان سبب نزولها أن النبي ﷺ زوّج ابنة عمته زينب لمولاه زيد، فامتنع أخوها عبد الله بن جحش، فنزلت هذه الآية. فهذا هو سبب النزول، وينطبق عليه قاعدة: «العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب». ومثال آخر سبب نزول آية المواريث؛ فقد زار النبي ﷺ جابر بن عبد الله وهو مريض، فقال: «يا رسول الله، كيف أصنع في مالي؟ ماذا أصنع في مالي؟»، فلم يجبه النبي ﷺ حتى نزلت آية المواريث (متفق عليه من حديث جابر)، فكان هذا سبب النزول.

The cause is when an issue happens and then a Shari’ah rule is revealed regarding it, such as the case for the revelation of the verse: “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair.” (TMQ 33:36). The cause for the revelation of this verse was that the Messenger (saw) engaged his niece Zaynab to his servant Zayd, then her brother ‘Abd Allah (swt) b. Jahsh refused, and so Allah (swt) revealed this verse. Therefore, this is the cause of the revelation, and the rule: “the consideration is given to the generality of the words and not to the specification of the cause” applies to it. Another example is the cause for the revelation of the verse regarding inheritance; the Messenger (saw) visited Jabir b. Abd Allah (swt) while he was ill and asked the Messenger of Allah (saw) : “How should I deal with my property? What should I do with my property?”, and the Messenger (saw) did not reply until the verse of inheritance was revealed (agreed upon narration from Jabir) and so this was the cause of the revelation.

. إِذْ جَاءَهُ رَجُلٌ فَ قَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، بَ يْ نَمَا نَحْنُ جُلُوسٌ عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ « هَلْ : هَلَكْتُ، قَالَ: مَا لَكَ؟ قَالَ: وقَ عْتُ عَلَى امْرَأَتِي وَأَنَا صَائِمٌ، فَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ تَجِدُ رَقَ بَةً تُ عْتِقُهَا؟ قَالَ: لا، قَالَ: فَ هَلْ تَسْتَطِيعُ أَنْ تَصُومَ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ؟ قَالَ: لا، فَ بَ يْ نَا نَحْنُ فَ قَالَ: فَ هَلْ تَجِدُ إِطْعَامَ سِتِّينَ مِسْكِينًا؟ قَالَ: لا، قَالَ: فَمَكَثَ النَّبِيُّ بِعَرَقٍ فِيهَا تَمْرٌ وَالْعَرَقُ الْمِكْتَلُ، قَالَ: أَيْنَ السَّائِلُ؟ فَ قَالَ: أَنَا، عَلَى ذَلِكَ أُتِيَ النَّبِيُّ قَالَ: خُذْهَا فَ تَصَدَّقْ بِهِ، فَ قَالَ الرَّجُلُ: أَعَلَى أَفْ قَرَ مِنِّي يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ؟ فَ وَاللَّهِ مَا بَ يْنَ حَتَّى بَدَتْ لابَ تَ يْ هَا، يُرِيدُ الْحَرَّتَ يْنِ، أَهْلُ بَ يْتٍ أَفْ قَرُ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَ يْتِي، فَضَحِكَ النَّبِيُّ » أَنْ يَابُهُ ثُمَّ قَالَ: أَطْعِمْهُ أَهْلَكَ .

بينما نحن جلوس عند النبي ﷺ إذ جاءه رجل فقال: يا رسول الله، هلكتُ! فقال له النبي ﷺ: ما شأنك؟ قال: وقعتُ على امرأتي وأنا صائم. فقال له النبي ﷺ: هل تجد ما تعتق به رقبة؟ قال: لا. فقال: فهل تستطيع أن تصوم شهرين متتابعين؟ قال: لا. فقال: فهل تجد ما تُطعم به ستين مسكينًا؟ قال: لا. فسكت النبي ﷺ، فبينما نحن على ذلك أُتي النبي ﷺ بعَرَقٍ فيه تمر، فقال: أين السائل؟ فقال: أنا. فقال: خذ هذا فتصدق به. فقال الرجل: أعلى أفقرَ مني يا رسول الله؟ فوالله ما بين لابتيها أهلُ بيتٍ أفقرُ من أهل بيتي، فضحك النبي ﷺ حتى بدت أنيابه، ثم قال: أطعمه أهلك.

“While we were sitting with the Prophet (saw) a man came and said, "O Allah (swt)'s Prophet! I have been ruined." Allah (swt)'s Prophet (saw) asked what was the matter with him. He replied "I had sexual intercourse with my wife while I was fasting." Allah (swt)'s Prophet (saw) asked him, "Can you afford to manumit a slave?" He replied in the negative. Allah (swt)'s Prophet (saw) asked him, "Can you fast for two successive months?" He replied in the negative. The Prophet (saw) asked him, "Can you afford to feed sixty poor persons?" He replied in the negative. The Prophet (saw) kept silent and while we were in that state, a big basket full of dates was brought to the Prophet. He asked, "Where is the questioner?" He replied, "I (am here)." The Prophet (saw) said (to him), "Take this (basket of dates) and give it in charity." The man said, "Should I give it to a person poorer than I? By Allah (swt); there is no family between its (i.e. Medina's) two mountains who are poorer than I." The Prophet (saw) smiled till his premolar teeth became visible and then said, 'Feed your family with it." when we were sitting down with the Prophet, a man came and said O Messenger of Allah (saw) I am destroyed. And so the Prophet (saw) asked him what did you do? He said I deliberately had intercourse with my wife during Ramadan. And so he said to him: “Do you have a slave you can free? He said no. So he asked him: Are you able to fast two consecutive months? He said no. So he said: Could you feed sixty poor people? He said no. So the Prophet (saw) waited, and in the meantime someone brought him a branch with a date and so he said: Where is the questioner? The man replied: Here. So he said: Take this and give it in charity. The man said: Upon someone poorer than me O Messenger of Allah (saw) ? I swear by Allah (swt)! There is no household poorer than me around. And so the Prophet (saw) laughed until his teeth could be seen and then said: Feed your family with it”.

"هل ستنقص الرطب إذا يبس؟" قالوا: نعم، فنهى عن ذلك؟" فأجابوا: نعم، فقال: "فنهى عن ذلك"، رواه أبو يعلى بهذا اللفظ عن سعد بن أبي وقاص، وصححه الحاكم وابن حبان. فجواب الرسول ﷺ خاصٌّ بما سُئل عنه، أي بيع الرطب بالتمر اليابس، وقوله: "فنهى عن ذلك" متصل بالسؤال. وهذا ليس علةً للحكم، بل هو جوابٌ عن سؤال، وبين الأمرين فرقٌ كبير. وعليه، فإن اللفظ العام الوارد جواباً عن سؤال ليس علةً للحكم، وإنما هو بيانٌ للمسألة المسؤول عنها فقط، ولو جاء اللفظ العام مُشرِّعاً لحكمٍ جديد لواقعةٍ حدثت، لكان تشريع الحكم عامّاً، وكان وقوع الواقعة هو سبب التشريع. فيظهر بذلك الفرقُ الواسع بين العلة وجواب السؤال. فالحكم العام يشمل علَّته وغيرها، أما جواب السؤال فيختص بالسؤال، لاتصال كلام الرسول ﷺ به.

“Will the fresh dates shrink when they are dry?"They said yes, so he forbade that?” and they replied yes, and so he said: “so he forbade that” reported by Abu Ya’la with this wording from Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas, and Al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban authenticated it. So, the answer of the Messenger (saw) is specific to what he has been asked, in other words, selling ripe dates for dried ones, and so his words: “so he forbade that” are connected to the question. This is not a cause for the rule, rather it is a reply to a question, and there is a big difference between both. Accordingly, the general wording which comes as a reply to a question is not a cause for the rule, it is only an explanation for the matter in question, and if general wording came as legislating a new rule for an issue that happened, then the legislation of the rule would be general, and the occurrence of the issue was the cause for the legislation of the rule. So the wide difference between the cause and the answer to a question becomes apparent. Therefore, the general rule encompasses its cause and anything else, whereas the answer to a question is specific to the question, since the words of the Messenger (saw) are connected to it.

“الماءُ طهورٌ” (رواه الترمذي عن أبي سعيد الخدري، وقال: حسن، وصححه أحمد)، وهو متصل بالسؤال، فقد أجاب ﷺ عن السؤال المتعلق بماء البئر، لكن جوابه للسائل شمل أكثر مما سُئل عنه، ومع ذلك يبقى جواباً لرسول الله ﷺ متصلاً بالسؤال. فقد سُئل عن الوضوء بماء البحر، فكان جوابه عاماً يشمل الوضوء والغسل من الجنابة وغير ذلك. وقد جاء في كتاب "إكمال المُعلِم بفوائد مسلم" ما نصه: "لماذا لم يجبهم حين قالوا: أنتوضأ به؟ بنعم. نقول: لأن ذلك كان سيقتصر على حال الضرورة، وليس الأمر كذلك. ثم إن الاقتصار في الجواب على: نعم، كان سيُفهم منه أنه لا يُتوضأ به إلا، ولا يُطهَّر به بقية النجاسات والأدران".

“water is pure” (reported by Al-Tirmidhi from Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri, and he said it is Hasan and Ahmad authenticated it), which is also connected to the question, and so he replied to the question about the well water but his reply to the questioner encompassed more than what he was asked about, yet it still remains as the answer of the Messenger (saw) connected to the question. So he was asked about ablution from sea water, and his answer was general encompassing ablution, Ghusl (ablution from major impurities) and more. In the book Al-Imam Sharh Al-Ilmam it is written: “why did he not answer then with yes when they said: “can we make ablution with it?”. We say – because it would have been restricted to the situation of necessity, and this is not the case. Also, it would be understood from the restriction of the answer to: “yes” that only ablution could be made from it, and the remainder of impurities and dirt could not be purified by it”.

فلهذا فإن جواب الرسول ﷺ عن ماء البحر وماء البئر مقصور على ما سُئل عنه، وليس عامًّا في كل شيء. لكنه أجاب السائل بأكثر مما سأل عنه، ولكن ضمن موضوع سؤاله، والبحث ليس في مطابقة الجواب للسؤال، بحيث يُقال إن جواب الرسول ﷺ كان أعم من سؤال السائل. بل البحث في أن الجواب كان مقصورًا على موضوع السؤال، ومحصورًا فيه دون أن يتجاوزه إلى موضوع آخر، وليس في مطابقة الجواب للسؤال. وقال الشوكاني في نيل الأوطار: "ومن فوائد الحديث جواز الزيادة في الجواب على السؤال، لتحصيل الفائدة وعدم لزوم الاقتصار". وقد بوّب البخاري على المسألة بقوله: "باب من أجاب السائل بأكثر مما سأله". وذكر حديث ابن عمر أن

Therefore, the answer of the Messenger (saw) regarding the sea water and well water is limited to what he was asked about, and not general to everything. However, he answered the questioner with more than what he asked, but still in the subject of his question, and the discussion is not about the conformity of the answer to the question, such that it could be said that the answer of the Messenger (saw) was more general than the question of the questioner. Rather the discussion is that the answer was limited to the subject matter of the question, and was limited to that without going beyond it to another subject, and not about the conformity of the answer to the question. Shawkani mentioned in Nayl Al-Awtar: “and from the benefits of the narration is the legitimacy of giving extra in the answer to the question, in order to limit the benefit (from a direct answer) and the lack of necessity to be restricted”. Bukhari wrote a chapter on the issue entitled: “Chapter – who answers the questioner with more than what he asked”. And he mentioned the narration of Ibn Umar that:

أَنَّ رَجُلًا سَأَلَ النَّبِيَّ ﷺ: «مَا يَلْبَسُ الْمُحْرِمُ؟» فَقَالَ: «لَا يَلْبَسُ الْقَمِيصَ، وَلَا الْعِمَامَةَ، وَلَا السَّرَاوِيلَ، وَلَا الْبُرْنُسَ، وَلَا ثَوْبًا مَسَّهُ زَعْفَرَانٌ أَوْ وَرْسٌ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ نَعْلَيْنِ فَلْيَلْبَسِ الْخُفَّيْنِ وَلْيَقْطَعْهُمَا أَسْفَلَ مِنَ الْكَعْبَيْنِ». فَكَأَنَّهُ سُئِلَ عَنْ حَالَةِ اخْتِيَارٍ فَأَجَابَ عَنْهَا، ثُمَّ زَادَ مَعْلُومَةً عَنْ حَالَةِ ضَرُورَةٍ، وَهَذَا لَيْسَ بِبَعِيدٍ عَنِ السُّؤَالِ، إِذْ قَدْ يُفْضِي السَّفَرُ إِلَى ذَلِكَ. وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ يَدُلُّ عَلَى أَنَّ الْجَوَابَ مُقَيَّدٌ بِالسُّؤَالِ؛ فَلْيُلَاحَظْ قَوْلُهُ: «لَيْسَ بِبَعِيدٍ عَنِ السُّؤَالِ»، وَسَوَاءٌ كَانَ الْجَوَابُ مُطَابِقًا لِمَا سَأَلَ عَنْهُ السَّائِلُ أَوْ زَائِدًا عَلَيْهِ، فَإِنَّ الْجَوَابَ خَاصٌّ بِالسُّؤَالِ. وَلِهَذَا كَانَ سُؤَالُ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ عَنِ الْحُلِيِّ، فَجَوَابُ الرَّسُولِ ﷺ خَاصٌّ بِالْحُلِيِّ، وَمُقْتَصِرٌ عَلَيْهِ، وَلَا يَنْطَبِقُ عَلَى مَا وَرَاءَهُ، لِأَنَّهُ جَوَابٌ عَنْ سُؤَالٍ، لَا سَبَبٌ لِنُزُولِ حُكْمٍ. وَبِنَاءً عَلَى ذَلِكَ، فَقَدْ تَبَيَّنَ بُطْلَانُ الِاسْتِدْلَالِ بِهَذَا الْحَدِيثِ على جواز اكتناز المال إذا أُدِّيَتْ زَكَاتُهُ، لِأَنَّ الْحَدِيثَ خَاصٌّ بِالْحُلِيِّ.

“A man asked the Prophet: "What (kinds of clothes) should a Muhrim (a Muslim intending to perform `Umra or Hajj) wear? He replied, "He should not wear a shirt, a turban, trousers, a head cloak or garment scented with saffron or Wars (kinds of perfumes). And if he has no slippers, then he can use Khuffs (socks made from thick fabric or leather) but the socks should be cut short so as to make the ankles bare.”, so it was though he was asked about a situation of choice and so he answered it, and then he gave extra information about a situation of exigency, which is not unusual to the question since a travel may lead to that”. This all indicates that the reply is limited by the question; notice his words: “not unusual to the question”, irrespective of whether the reply was in conformity with what the questioner asked or was more than he asked, the answer is specific to the question. For this reason the question of Umm Salamah was regarding jewellery and so the answer of the Messenger (saw) is specific to jewellery, and is limited to it, and does not apply to anything beyond it, because it is an answer to a question and not a cause for the revelation of a rule. Accordingly, the use of this narration as an evidence to prove the permissibility of hoarding if Zakah had been paid upon it has been shown to be invalid, since the narration is specific to jewellery.

الدليل الثاني: آية الزكاة عامة في كل كنز، وحديث أم سلمة خاص بالحلي، فيكون الحديث تخصيصاً لعموم الآية. فالكنز المحرَّم هو كنز غير الحلي، أما كنز الحلي فلا يُحرَّم إذا أُدِّيَت زكاته. ولا يمكن من أي وجه أن يكون الحديث عاماً لكل نوع من الكنز، وأبسط دليل على أنه ليس عاماً أنه لو كان عاماً لكان نسخاً للآية، إذ تكون الآية عامة والحديث عاماً، فيكون نسخاً للآية. والحديث آحاد، فهو ظني، بينما الآية قطعية، والأخبار لا تنسخ القرآن ولو كانت متواترة، وذلك لأن القرآن ثابت قطعاً لفظاً ومعنىً، ونحن نتعبد الله تعالى بألفاظه ومعانيه، أما الخبر المتواتر فثابت قطعاً من حيث معناه لا من حيث ألفاظه، ولا نتعبد الله تعالى بألفاظه، فلا يصح أن ينسخ القرآن. فإذا كان هذا في المتواتر، فكيف بالآحاد؟ وعليه فقد بطل الاستدلال بهذا الحديث على جواز كنز الحلي إذا أُدِّيَت زكاته، لامتناع نسخ القرآن بالخبر.

The second of the two reasons: the verse of Zakah is general for every hoard, and the narration of Umm Salamah is specific to jewellery, and so the narration would be a specification for the generality of the verse. Therefore, the hoarding that is forbidden is the hoarding of anything other than jewellery, whereas it is not prohibited to hoard jewellery if the Zakah on it is paid. It is not possible from any angle for the narration to be general to every type of hoard, and the simplest evidence that it is not general is that if it was then it would be an abrogation of the verse, since the verse would be general as would the narration and so it would be an abrogation for the verse. And the narration is an Ahad (singular) narration and so it is inconclusive whereas the verse is definite, and the narrations cannot abrogate the Quran even if they were Mutawatir (multiple chains of narrations such that the narration becomes definitely confirmed). This is because the Quran is definitely confirmed by words and meaning, and we worship Allah (swt) by its words and meaning, whereas the Mutawatir narration is definitely confirmed from its meaning and not its words, and we do not worship Allah (swt) with its words, and so it cannot abrogate the Quran. If this is the case for the Mutawatir narration, then what about the singular one? And so accordingly the use of this narration to prove the permissibility of hoarding if Zakah is paid upon it has been proven invalid, due to the impermissibility of Quran being abrogated by a narration.

يقول الذين يجيزون اكتناز الذهب والفضة إذا أُدِّيت زكاتهما إن الدليل على جوازه هو أن آية تحريم الاكتناز منسوخة بالآيات التي فرضت الزكاة، وأن تلك الآيات نسخت آية الاكتناز بإيجاب الصدقة، أي الزكاة، فيها. والرد على ذلك أن الزكاة فُرضت على المسلمين في السنة الثانية من الهجرة، بينما نزلت آية الاكتناز في السنة التاسعة بعد الهجرة، وما نزل متقدمًا لا ينسخ ما نزل متأخرًا. وفضلًا عن ذلك، فإنه يجب أن يوجد دليل يدل على أن هذه الآية ناسخة للآية الأخرى حتى يكون نسخًا، فإن لم يوجد دليل يدل على ذلك النسخ فلا يُعد نسخًا. والنسخ هو رفع الحكم الثابت بنص سابق وإزالته بنص لاحق، ورفع الحكم السابق بنص لاحق مشروطٌ بأن يذكر النص اللاحق أنه ناسخ للحكم السابق، كقوله تعالى:

Those who permit the hoarding of gold and silver if Zakah has been paid upon it, claim that the evidence for its permissibility is that the verse forbidding hoarding is abrogated by the verses which made Zakah obligatory, and that those verses abrogated the verse of hoarding by obligating Sadaqah, in other words, Zakah, upon it. The reply to this is that Zakah was made obligatory upon the Muslims in the second year after Hijrah, whereas the verse of hoarding was revealed in the ninth year after Hijrah, and what is revealed earlier does not abrogate what is revealed later. On top of that, it is imperative that there is an evidence which indicates that this verse is an abrogation for the other verse in order for it to be abrogation, and if there is no evidence found which indicates that abrogation, then it is not considered to be an abrogation. Abrogation is the cancellation and lifting of the rule derived from a previous text by a subsequent text, and the cancellation of the previous rule by a subsequent text is conditional upon the subsequent text mentioning that it is an abrogation for the previous rule, such as his words:

«كُنْتُ نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ فَزُورُوهَا» (رواه مسلم عن بريدة)، وَقَوْلُهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: ﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نَاجَيْتُمُ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدِّمُوا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ نَجْوَاكُمْ صَدَقَةً ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ وَأَطْهَرُ ۚ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ﴾ (المجادلة: 12). تَحُثُّ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ عَلَى تَقْدِيمِ الصَّدَقَةِ عِنْدَ مُنَاجَاةِ الرَّسُولِ ﷺ إِنْ أَمْكَنَ، ثُمَّ جَاءَتْ آيَةٌ أُخْرَى فَنَسَخَتْهَا: ﴿أَأَشْفَقْتُمْ أَنْ تُقَدِّمُوا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ نَجْوَاكُمْ صَدَقَاتٍ ۚ فَإِذْ لَمْ تَفْعَلُوا وَتَابَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ﴾ (المجادلة: 13). فَهَذِهِ الْآيَةُ تُسْقِطُ الْحُكْمَ الْوَارِدَ بِوُجُوبِ تَقْدِيمِ الصَّدَقَةِ عِنْدَ الْمُنَاجَاةِ. وَقَدْ بَيَّنَ الْحَدِيثُ فِي نَصِّهِ أَنَّهُ نَسْخٌ صَرِيحًا، وَبَيَّنَتِ الْآيَةُ أَنَّهُ نَسْخٌ بِالدَّلَالَةِ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: ﴿أَأَشْفَقْتُمْ أَنْ تُقَدِّمُوا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ نَجْوَاكُمْ صَدَقَاتٍ﴾، وَلِذَلِكَ يَجِبُ أَنْ يَتَضَمَّنَ النَّصُّ اللَّاحِقُ الَّذِي يُدَّعَى أَنَّهُ نَاسِخٌ لِنَصٍّ سَابِقٍ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى النَّسْخِ، إِمَّا تَصْرِيحًا أَوْ دَلَالَةً. وَلَا يَكْفِي لِلنَّسْخِ وُجُودُ التَّعَارُضِ الظَّاهِرِ بَيْنَ النَّصَّيْنِ، لِأَنَّهُ لَا تَعَارُضَ بَيْنَ آيَاتِ الْقُرْآنِ. أَمَّا مَا ذَهَبَ إِلَيْهِ بَعْضُ الْعُلَمَاءِ مِنْ أَنَّ هَاتَيْنِ الْآيَتَيْنِ تُوحِيَانِ بِالتَّعَارُضِ بَيْنَهُمَا وَيَدَّعُونَ نَسْخَ إِحْدَاهُمَا، فَإِنَّ نَصَّ الْآيَتَيْنِ نَفْسَهُمَا صَرِيحٌ فِي انْتِفَاءِ التَّعَارُضِ، وَالْجَمْعُ بَيْنَ النَّصَّيْنِ وَاضِحٌ، وَلَيْسَ فِي الْآيَاتِ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى النَّسْخِ. وَعَلَيْهِ فَيَجِبُ أَنْ يَتَضَمَّنَ النَّصُّ اللَّاحِقُ الَّذِي يُزْعَمُ أَنَّهُ نَاسِخٌ لِسَابِقِهِ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ، تَصْرِيحًا أَوْ دَلَالَةً. ليس في آيات الزكاة ما يدل من قريب أو بعيد على أنها ناسخة لآية الاكتناز، لا بالتصريح ولا بالإشارة، فلا تكون ناسخة لها. وحتى الذين يقولون إن التعارض بين النص المتأخر والمتقدم يجعل المتأخر ناسخًا للمتقدم، لا يقولون إن آيات الزكاة تنسخ آية الاكتناز، لأنه لا يوجد ما يشير إلى تعارض بين الاثنين، إذ إن آيات الزكاة خطاب بأداء الزكاة، وآية الاكتناز خطاب بالنهي عن الاكتناز. ولا تعارض بين الأمرين، فقد تُؤدّى الزكاة مع وجود الاكتناز، وقد تُترك الزكاة ويُترك الاكتناز. وهذا سبب إضافي لعدم وجود النسخ حتى على هذا القول، فمن أي جهة يُدّعى النسخ إذن؟ وعليه، فإن الزكاة شُرعت في السنة الثانية من الهجرة، ونزلت آية الاكتناز في السنة التاسعة من الهجرة، أي بعد وجوب الزكاة بسبع سنوات، ولم تشتمل آيات الزكاة، لا بالتصريح ولا بالإشارة، على ما يدل على أنها ناسخة لآية الاكتناز، وفوق ذلك لا يوجد تعارض بينهما، أي لا تعارض بين آيات الزكاة وآية الاكتناز. لذلك فإن القول بأن آية الاكتناز منسوخة قول باطل، فيُرد.

“(In the past) I forbade you from visiting graves, but visit them now.” (reported by Muslim from Buraydah) and His (swt) words: “O you who have believed, when you [wish to] privately consult the Messenger (saw), present before your consultation a charity. That is better for you and purer. But if you find not [the means] - then indeed, Allah (swt) is Forgiving and Merciful.” (TMQ 58:12). This verse enjoins spending charity when coming for consultation if possible, and then another verse comes and abrogates it: “Have you feared to present before your consultation charities? Then when you do not and Allah (swt) has forgiven you, then [at least] establish prayer and give Zakah and obey Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw).” (TMQ 58:13). This verse, therefore, lifts the injunction to pay charity when coming for private consultation. The narration explains explicitly within its text that it is an abrogation, and the verse explains it is an abrogation through indication by His (swt) words: “Have you feared to present before your consultation charities?”, and so it is imperative that the text includes something that indicates that it is an abrogation from the previous text, either explicitly or through implicit indication. It is not sufficient for abrogation that there is an apparent conflict between the two texts, because there is no conflict between verses of Quran. As for what some Scholars have said, that these verses suggest conflict between them and claim that they are abrogated, the text of those verses themselves are explicit in the absence of any conflict and reconciliation between the texts is clear and there is nothing in the verses which indicates abrogation. Therefore, it is imperative that the subsequent text which is claimed to be an abrogation for a previous one includes something, either explicitly or by indication, that proves it is an abrogation. There is nothing in the verses of Zakah which indicate from near or far that they are an abrogation for the verse regarding hoarding, whether explicit or by an indication, and so they are not an abrogation for it. Even those who say that conflict between a subsequent and previous text makes the subsequent text an abrogation for the previous one, do not say that the verses of Zakah abrogate the verse regarding hoarding because there is nothing that suggests a conflict between the two, since the verses of Zakah are an address to pay Zakah, and the verse regarding hoarding is an address to call for the absence of hoarding. There is no conflict between these two issues, since there could be payment of Zakah and hoarding, and there could be the absence of payment of Zakah and the absence of hoarding. This is an additional reason why there is no abrogation even according to this opinion, and so from what angle is this abrogation claimed? Accordingly, the fact that the Zakah was legislated in the second year after hijrah and the verse regarding hoarding was revealed in the ninth year after hijrah, in other words, seven years after Zakah had been obligated, and the fact that the verses of Zakah do not encompass, explicitly or through indication, what is necessary to indicate that they are an abrogation for the verse regarding hoarding, and above and beyond that there is no conflict between them, in other words, there is no conflict between the verses of Zakah and the verse regarding hoarding, therefore, the claim that the verse regarding hoarding is abrogated is a false claim, and so it is rejected.

فأما الذين يزعمون أن كنز الذهب والفضة جائز إذا أُدّيت زكاتهما، فإنهم يستدلون على جوازه بما رُوي في صحيح البخاري: «عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما قال: سأله رجل من أهل البادية عن قوله تعالى: {وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ} [التوبة: ٣٤]، فقال: من كنزها فلم يؤدِّ زكاتها فويلٌ له، وذلك قبل أن تنزل الزكاة، فلما أُنزلت جعلها الله طُهرةً للأموال». ولا يُقال إن هذه الرواية عن ابن عمر تخصيصٌ للقرآن بالسنة، أو نسخٌ للقرآن بالسنة، بل هي خبرٌ صحيحٌ عن ذلك النسخ، فهي من باب نسخ القرآن بالقرآن، لأن الذي نسخ الحكم في هذه الحال هو القرآن، إذ فُرضت الزكاة بالقرآن لا بالسنة، فيجب قبوله لأنه رواية صحيحة تخبر بأن الآية منسوخة بآية أخرى، وعليه فإن تحريم الكنز قد نُسخ. ولذلك يجوز كنز ما أُدّيت زكاته.

Those who claim that it is permitted to hoard gold and silver if Zakah has been paid upon them say that the evidence for its permissibility is what has been reported in Bukhari: “from Ibn Umar who said that a Bedouin asked him about the verse: “And those who hoard gold and silver” (TMQ 9:34) : Whoever hoards it, and not pay its Zakah, so woe unto them; that was before the revelation of the verse of Zakah, and so when that was revealed Allah (swt) made it as a purification for the wealth”. It cannot be argued that this narration from Ibn Umar is a specification for the Quran by the Sunnah, or an abrogation of the Quran by the Sunnah. Rather this narration is an authentic information regarding that abrogation, and so it is from the category of abrogation of Quran by Quran, since what abrogated the Quran in this case was the Quran because Zakah was made obligatory by the Quran and not the Sunnah, and so it is obligatory to accept it since it is an authentic narration which reports that the verse is abrogated by another verse, and so the forbiddance of hoarding is abrogated. Therefore, whatever has had Zakah paid upon it can be hoarded.

الجواب أن تحريم الكنز مسألة مستقلة عن الزكاة، وأن المعلومات المذكورة تمنع إيجاب أي حقوق أخرى زيادة على الزكاة، وهذا لا يمنع وجود أحكام إضافية متعلقة بالمال. فالكنز من الأحكام المتعلقة بالمال، لا من الحقوق الواجبة في المال. فالله سبحانه لم يفرض على المال الذي يملكه المسلم، من حيث كونه مالاً، حقاً غير الزكاة، لكنه شرع للمال أحكاماً أخرى ليست من أحكام الزكاة، مثل أحكام الربا في الذهب والفضة، وتلك المتعلقة بصرف الذهب والفضة، وتلك المتعلقة بالذهب والفضة الموجودين في الدفن، وكلها من الأحكام المتعلقة بالمال. والأحكام المتعلقة بالمال المدفون في الأرض من الأحكام المالية كسائر الأحكام، وليست من الحقوق الواجبة في المال، ولذلك فإن هذه الأحاديث لا علاقة لها بكنز المال، وبالتالي فإنها لا تدل على انتفاء تحريم كنز المال إذا أُدّيت زكاته، ولذلك فقد بطل الاستدلال بهذه الأحاديث.

The answer to this is that the forbiddance of hoarding is an issue independent from Zakah, and the information mentioned prevents the obligating of any other rights in addition to Zakah, which does not prevent the presence of additional rules connected to wealth. Hoarding is from the rules relating to wealth and not from the obligatory rights upon the wealth. So Allah (swt) did not impose any right other than Zakah over the wealth owned by the Muslim from the angle of it being wealth, but He (swt) legislated other rules for wealth which are not from the rules of Zakah, such as the rules of interest in gold and silver, and those relating to exchange of gold and silver, and those relating to gold and silver found buried, which are all from the rules regarding wealth. The rules regarding wealth found in the ground are from the financial rules like the rest of the rules, and they are not from the obligatory rights upon the wealth, and so accordingly these narrations have nothing to do with the hoarding of wealth, and consequently these narrations do not indicate the absence of the forbiddance of hoarding wealth if the Zakah on it had been paid, and, therefore, the use of these narrations as evidence has been invalidated.

يبقى إشكال واحد، وهو: ما المقصود بالكنز في الآية؟ والجواب أن المراد بالكنز جمع المال فوق المال دون حاجة. فالكنز في اللغة هو جمع المال فوق المال وحفظه، ويُقال: كنز المال أي جمعه، والكنز هو كل ما جُمع بعضه فوق بعض، سواء كان مدفونًا تحت الأرض أو فوقها. وقد ورد في القاموس المحيط: «الكَنْزُ: المالُ المَدفونُ، ويُكنَزُ فيه الذهبُ والفضةُ وكلُّ ما يُصانُ به المالُ». وقال الإمام أبو جعفر الطبري: «الكنز: كلُّ ما جُمع بعضُه إلى بعض، سواءٌ كان مدفونًا تحت الأرض أو فوقها». وقال صاحب العين: «وقد كُنِزَ». وهذا هو معنى الكنز في اللغة، والقرآن يُفسَّر بمعناه اللغوي ما لم يرد عن الشرع معنى شرعي للفظ، فيُفسَّر حينئذٍ بمعناه الشرعي. ولم يرد في لفظ الكنز معنى شرعي ثابت، فيجب تفسيره بمعناه اللغوي وحده، وهو أن جمع المال فوق المال من غير حاجة، لذاته، هو الكنز المذموم الذي توعّد الله سبحانه فاعله بالعذاب الأليم. فدفن المال هو حفظه وادخاره من غير حاجة، أي عدم الحاجة إليه، إذ لو كان المال للإنفاق لم يكن بحاجة إلى أن يُدفن أو يُدخر. وعليه فالمقصود بكنز المال في الآية ادخاره من غير حاجة يُنفق لأجلها، فيشمل كل نوع من ادخار الذهب والفضة من غير حاجة.

One issue remains which is: what is intended by the words hoarding (Al-Kanz) in the verse? The answer is that what is meant by hoarding is collecting wealth on top of wealth without a need. Hoarding linguistically means to collect wealth on top of wealth and to preserve it, and wealth is hoarded in other words, collected, and the hoard is anything which has been collected together, under or over ground. It is mentioned in the Al-Muheet dictionary: “Al- Kanz: the buried wealth, and it is hoarded and gold and silver and whatever is used to protect wealth”. Imam Abu Ja’far Al-Tabari said: “Al-Kanz: Everything that is collected together, irrespective if it was held under or over ground”, and the one who wrote Al-‘ain said: “and it was stored”. This is the meaning of Al-Kanz (the hoard) linguistically, and the Quran is explained by the linguistic meaning alone, unless the Shari’ah related a Shari’ah meaning for something, in which case it is explained by its Shari’ah meaning. And the word Al-Kanz has no authentic Shari’ah meaning related for it, and so it must be explained by its linguistic meaning alone, which is that simply collecting wealth on top of wealth without a need, for its own sake, is considered to be the blameworthy hoarding for which Allah (swt) promised a painful punishment for the one who carried it out. Therefore, burying wealth means to keep it preserved needlessly, and to store the wealth in other words, not having a need for it, since if wealth is for spending it is not needed to be buried or stored. Accordingly the intention behind the words hoarding of wealth in the verse is to store it without a need for which it is spent, and so it applies to every type of storing of gold and silver without a need.