Mataki na 142

Article 142

by Sheikh Taqiuddin An-Nabahani14 min readViewed 198 times

Tara dukiya ba daidai ba ne, ko da an biya zakka a kanta.

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

Dalilinsa shi ne maganar Allah (SWT):

Its evidence is the words of Allah (swt):

"Kuma waɗanda suke tara zinariya da azurfa, ba sa ciyar da ita a hanyar Allah (SWT) - ka yi musu bushara da azaba mai raɗaɗi." (TMQ 9:34), wanda ke nuni ga haramcin tara dukiya ba tare da iyaka ba. Ko da yake an saukar da wannan ayar game da Ahlul Kitab, kalmominta gama-gari ne, kuma mu ma ana magana da mu da su, kamar yadda yake bayyana a farkon ayar, inda ta ce:

“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:

Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani, lalle yawancin malamai da kuma masu ibada na addinin Yahudawa da Nasara suna cin dukiyar mutane ba da gaskiya ba, kuma suna kange su daga hanyar Allah (SWT). Kuma waɗanda suke tara zinariya da azurfa.

“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).

Shaidar da ke nuna cewa ayar ta haramta tara zinariya da azurfa ta hanyar gaba ɗaya, ba tare da keɓe ba, ko an biya zakka a kansu ko ba a biya ba, ita ce kamar haka:

The evidence that the verse forbade the hoarding of gold and silver in a general, unrestricted way irrespective of whether the Zakah had been paid upon it or not is as follows:

Amma na farko: ƙa'idar gama-gari na wannan ayar. Lafazin ayar da fahimtar ma'anarta suna nuna cewa haramcin tara dukiya ta zinariya da azurfa haramci ne na gama-gari. Saboda haka, ra'ayin da ke halatta tara dukiya bayan biyan zakka karkacewa ce daga hukuncin ayar wadda ma'anarta bayyananne ce kuma tabbatacciya. Wannan ba zai yiwu ba sai da hujja wadda za ta canja ma'anar ayar ko ta soke ta, kuma babu wata nassi ingantacce da ya fitar da ita daga ma'anarta ta asali, kuma ba zai yiwu a samu hujja da za ta fitar da ita daga ma'anarta ta asali ba tunda ma'anarta tabbatacciya ce. Don haka, babu abin da ya rage sai dai a samu hujja da ta soke ta, kuma babu wata hujja da ta soke ta. Saboda haka hukuncinta ya kasance a tabbace, wato haramcin tara dukiya, ko da an biya zakka a kanta; watau haramcin tara dukiya ba tare da sharadi ba.

First: the generality of this verse. The text of the verse, from both its wording and understanding, are evidence that the prohibition of hoarding wealth from gold and silver is a comprehensive prohibition. So, the opinion of permitting hoarding after the payment of Zakah is departure from the ruling of the verse whose indication is definite. This cannot be accredited except with evidence which would change the meaning of the verse or abrogate it, and there is no authentic text which takes it from its original meaning, and it is not possible that there could be evidence which takes it from its original meaning since it has a definite indication. So nothing remains except that there could be evidence which abrogates it, and there is no evidence which abrogates it. Therefore, its ruling remains confirmed, which is the forbiddance of hoarding wealth, even if Zakah was paid upon it; in other words, the unrestricted forbiddance of hoarding.

Na biyu: Ahmad ya ruwaito da isnadi sahihi daga Abu Umamah, wanda ya ce:

Second: Ahmad reported with an authentic chain from Abu Umamah who said:

. كيَّةٌ، توُُفيَِّ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ ال صفَّةِ، فَوُجِدَ فِي مِئْزَرِهِ دِينَارٌ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « » كَيَّتَانِ :قَالَ: ثُمَّ توُُفيَِّ آخَرُ فَوُجِدَ فِي مِئْزَرِهِ دِينَارَانِ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ .

Wani mutum daga cikin Ahl Al-Suffah ya rasu, aka samu Dinari a cikin tufafinsa (zanen dake kugu); Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: "Za a kone shi", sai wani kuma ya rasu, aka samu Dinari biyu a jikinsa, Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: "Za a kone shi sau biyu", kuma wannan yana nufin an haramta tarawar zinari da azurfa gaba daya, ko da kuwa Dinari biyu ne ko ma daya kacal, muddin ana tarawa, wato ajiye dukiya ba tare da bukatar a kashe ta ba. Manzon Allah ﷺ ya fadi haka game da mutanen nan biyu saboda sun kasance daga cikin wadanda ke rayuwa da sadaka, duk da haka suna dauke da zinari, don haka ya ce: "Za a kone shi" da "Za a kone shi sau biyu", yana ishara zuwa ga fadin Allah (SWT): "Ranar da za a rura shi a cikin wutar Jahannama, sai a yi kaba da shi goshinsu, da gefen jikinsu, da bayansu." (TMQ 9:35), wanda yana cikin ayoyin tarawa; wato yana ishara zuwa ayoyin da suka shafi tarawa. Wannan hujja ce ta haramcin tarawa gaba daya, cikakke, ba tare da la'akari da ko ta kai adadin da ake biyan Zakka a kansa ba ko a'a, kuma ba tare da la'akari da ko an biya Zakka a kansa ba ko a'a; don haka duk wani tara dukiya haramun ne. Na uku: Haɗin kalma (wa) a fadin Allah (SWT): "Kada su kashe shi a hanyar Allah (SWT)." (TMQ 9:34) yana bambanta da fadin Allah (SWT): "Wadanda ke tara zinari da azurfa." (TMQ 9:34), don haka yana nuna cewa ayar ta kunshi dokoki biyu: na farko shi ne tara dukiya, na biyu kuwa rashin kashe ta a hanyar Allah (SWT). Ma'anar ayar tana nuna gargadin azaba mai tsanani da ke da alaka da wadannan abubuwa biyu, wato: ga wadanda ke tara zinari da azurfa kuma ba sa kashe su a hanyar Allah (SWT), to ka basu labarin azaba mai tsanani. Saboda haka, a bayyane yake cewa wanda ba ya tara dukiya, amma ba ya kashewa a hanyar Allah (SWT), yana cikin barazanar, haka kuma wanda yake kashewa a hanyar Allah (SWT) amma yana tara dukiya shi ma yana cikin barazanar. Al-Qurtubi ya ce: "Duk wanda ba ya tara dukiya, amma ya hana kashewa a hanyar Allah (SWT), dole ne ya zama daidai da shi". Abin da ake nufi da kalmomin: "a hanyar Allah (SWT)" a cikin ayar shi ne Jihadi, tun da an ambace shi tare da kashewa. Idan aka haɗa kalmomin: "a hanyar Allah (SWT)" da kashewa, to ma'anarsu ita ce Jihadi, sai dai idan an sami alama da ta kawar da su daga wannan ma'ana. Saboda haka, kalmomin: "kuma ba sa kashe shi" ba su dace su zama hujja ba cewa idan sun tara dukiya sai su kashe daga cikinta a hanyar Allah (SWT) ba sa cikin azaba, domin ma'anar ayar ba ita ce: "duk wanda ya tara dukiya ta hanyar ba ya kashe ta a hanyar Allah (SWT), to ka yi musu bushara da azaba mai tsanani" ba, inda haɗin kalmar ke bayani, don haka idan an kashe dukiyar da aka tara a hanyar Allah (SWT), mai tarawar ba zai sha azaba ba. A'a, ma'anar ayar ita ce: duk wanda ya tara, to ka yi musu bushara da azaba, kuma duk wanda ba ya kashewa a hanyar Allah (SWT), to ka yi musu bushara da azaba. Haɗin kalmar haɗin bambanci ne, ba na bayani ba. Saboda haka, haramcin tara dukiya ba shi da iyaka, ko an kashe wani ɓangare a hanyar Allah (SWT) ko ba a kashe ba, kuma batun haramcin tara dukiya wani batu ne daban da batun haramcin rashin kashewa a hanyar Allah (SWT). Don haka, a bayyane yake cewa ayar ta haramta tara dukiya ko da an biya zakka a kanta, kuma ko da an kashe wani ɓangare a hanyar Allah (SWT).

Na huɗu: Bukhari ya ruwaito daga Zayd b. Wahb wanda ya ce: "Na wuce ta wajen Abu Dharr a Al-Rabtha, sai na tambaye shi: Me ya kawo ka wannan wuri? Ya amsa: Mun kasance a Ash-Sham inda na yi sabani da Mu'awiyah game da..."

Fourth: Bukhari reported from Zayd b. Wahb who said: “I passed by Abu Dharr in Al-Rabtha, so I asked him: What brought you to this place? He replied: We were in Ash-Sham where I had a dispute with Mu’awiyah over:

“Wa-l-ladhīna yakinzūna adh-dhahaba wa-l-fiḍḍata wa-lā yunfiqūnahā fī sabīli-llāh (SWT)” (TMQ 9:34), sai Mu'awiya ya ce: “Wannan an saukar da shi ne game da Ahlul-Kitab.” Sai na ce: “An saukar da shi game da su da kuma game da mu.” Wannan shi ne ya zama sanadin rashin jituwa a tsakaninmu. Sai ya rubuta wa 'Uthman yana korafi a kaina, shi kuma 'Uthman ya rubuta mini yana umurtata da in zo Madina. Na je, sai mutane suka taru kewaye da ni kamar ba su taba ganina ba. Na faɗa wa 'Uthman haka, sai ya ce: “Idan kana so, za ka iya zama kusa da mu.” Wannan ne ya kai ni wannan wuri, kuma idan wani Habasha ne ya shugabance ni, zan saurara in yi masa biyayya.” Don haka, sabanin da ke tsakanin Abu Dharr da Mu'awiya ya shafi game da wadanne mutane aka saukar da ayar, ba game da ma'anarta ba. Idan Mu'awiya ko 'Uthman (ra) suna da wata ingantacciyar riwaya da ta ambata cewa idan an biya zakka daga dukiya, to ba za a dauke ta a matsayin tara ba, da Mu'awiya zai yi amfani da ita a kan ra'ayin Abu Dharr, da an yi wa Abu Dharr shiru, ko kuma 'Uthman (ra) zai yi amfani da ita ya rufe masa baki. Wannan yana nuna cewa gabaɗaya da kuma yadda ayar ba ta da iyaka ba su ne sanadin sabanin da ke tsakanin Mu'awiya da Abu Dharr, da kuma tsakanin Mu'awiya da 'Uthman (ra), kuma ba a tabbatar cewa suna da riwayar da ta saba wa hakan ba.

“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.

Saboda haka a bayyane yake cewa ayar tana da fa'ida, ta shafi dukkan zinariya da azurfa, ko an yi amfani da wani ɓangare daga cikinsu wajen Jihadi, ko an biya zakka a kansu, ko sun kai adadin da zakka ta zama wajibi ko ba su kai ba. Saboda haka, duk tara dukiya (kanzu) haramun ne.

Accordingly it is clear that the verse is general covering all gold and silver, irrespective of whether some of it was used in Jihad, and whether Zakah had been paid upon it, and whether it reached the amount required for Zakah to become obligatory or not. Therefore, all hoarding is forbidden (Haram).

Waɗanda suka halatta tara dukiya idan an riga an biya zakka a kanta ba su da wata hujja ingantacciya, kuma dukkan hujjojinsu ba a ɗaukar su da muhimmanci saboda raunin su da rashin ingancin silsilar riwayoyinsu. Ko da yake Bukhari ya rubuta babi mai taken: "Babi – Ba tara dukiya ba ce idan an biya zakka a kanta", bai kawo ko riwaya ɗaya da ke nuna wannan taken ba, domin babu ko ɗaya daga cikinsu da ta ingata a wurinsa. Dukkan riwayoyin da aka yi amfani da su a matsayin hujja ga halascin tara dukiya bayan an biya zakka a kanta ba ingantattu ba ne sai guda ɗaya daga cikinsu. Wannan riwaya ita ce riwayar da ta shafi kayan ado wadda Umm Salamah ta ruwaito, sauran riwayoyin da aka ruwaito a wannan mas'ala kuma ana ɗaukar su a matsayin ƙarya, kuma an soki su ta ɓangaren silsila da kuma ta ɓangaren matani.

Those who permit hoarding if Zakah had been paid upon it have no authentic evidence and all of their evidences are not considered valid due to their weakness and the poor chains of narrations. Even though Bukhari wrote a section entitled: “Chapter – It is not a hoard when Zakah has been paid upon it”, he did not produce a single narration which indicates the heading, since not even a single one was authentic to him. All the narrations used as evidence for the permissibility of hoarding once Zakah had been paid upon it are not authentic except for a single one of them. This narration is the narration regarding jewellery which was reported by Umm Salamah, and all of the other narrations which were reported in this issue are considered as lies, and have been criticised from both the angle of the chain and text of the narration.

Dangane da hadisin Umm Salamah wanda ake amfani da shi a matsayin hujja don tabbatar da halascin tara zinari da azurfa muddin an biya zakka a kansu, ga yadda yake: Abu Dawud ya ruwaito daga sanadin Thabit b. Ajlan, daga Ata, daga Umm Salamah, wadda ta ce:

With respect to the narration of Umm Salamah that they use as an evidence to prove the permissibility of hoarding gold and silver if Zakah is paid upon it, it is as follows: Abu Dawud reported from the chain of Thabit b. Ajlan from Ataa from Umm Salamah who said:

. كُنْتُ أَلْبَسُ أَوْضَاحًا مِنْ ذَهَبٍ فَقُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، أَكَنْزٌ هُوَ؟ فَقَالَ: مَا بلََغَ أَنْ « » تؤَُدَّى زَكَاتُهُ فَزُكِّيَ فَلَيْسَ بِكَنْزٍ .

“Ina sanye da kayan adon zinariya. Sai na tambaya: Shin wannan kanz ne, ya Manzon Allah (saw)? Sai ya ce: Duk abin da ya kai adadin da ake biyan zakka a kansa, to ba kanz ba ne idan an biya zakkar.” Kalmar da aka yi amfani da ita a cikin hadisin ita ce Al-Awdhah, wadda nau’in kayan ado ce. An ambace ta a cikin kamus na Al-Muhit: “Al-Wadeh… kuma kayan ado ne na azurfa, kuma jam’insa Awdhah.” Wannan hadisi yana da rauni saboda Thabit b. Ajlan yana cikin wadanda ake rigima a kansu idan shi kadai ne mai ruwaito hadisi. Al-Dhahabi ya ce game da Thabit a cikin tarihin rayuwarsa: “Daga cikin hadisan da ake musantawa daga Thabit akwai hadisin ‘Attab daga ‘Ata’ daga Umm Salamah.” Duk da haka, ko da ya inganta, yana takaituwa ne ga kayan adon da mata ke sawa, kuma ba a dauke shi a matsayin tarin dukiya (kanz) idan darajarsa ta kai Nisab, kuma an riga an biya zakka a kansa. Wannan shi ne shaida ga wajabcin biyan zakka a kan kayan ado da kuma keɓe shi daga ma’anar gaba ɗaya ta tara dukiya. Wannan hadisi ba ya dacewa a matsayin shaida ga halaccin tara dukiya idan an riga an biya zakka a kanta, ta fuskoki biyu:

“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:

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. Translation: Da farko: Wannan hadisi ya zo ne a matsayin amsar wata tambaya, kuma duk nassin da ya zo a matsayin amsar tambaya, ko kuma ya zo game da wani takamaiman batu, to lallai an iyakance shi ga abin da tambayar ta shafa, da kuma wannan takamaiman batun, kuma ba a la’akari da shi a matsayin gama-gari ga komai ba, tun da kalmomin suna da alaƙa da tambayar, ko a takaice, da takamaiman batun, don haka suna takamaiman kuma iyakantattu ga wannan tambaya da batun, ba sa aiki fiye da su. Saboda haka, hadisin yana takamaiman ga kayan ado, don haka idan an biya zakka a kan kayan ado, to an halatta a tara shi, amma wani abu kuma ba a halatta ba. Ba za a iya cewa dokar Shari’a ita ce: “ana la’akari da ma’anar gama-gari na kalmomi, ba da takamaiman dalilin ba,” kuma kalmomin nan gama-gari ne, don haka ba takamaiman ga kayan ado ba ne, a maimakon haka sun hada da kayan ado da wani abu kuma. Ba za a iya cewa haka ba, domin wannan doka tana ga dalili, ba ga amsar tambaya ko takamaiman batu ba. Doka ce daidai kuma nassinta yana nuna cewa doka ce ta dalili kawai, domin yana cewa: “ba ga takamaiman dalili ba”, kuma akwai bambanci tsakanin dalili da takamaiman batun, da kuma tsakanin dalili da amsar tambaya.

Sababun-nuzul shi ne lokacin da wata matsala ta faru sannan sai a saukar da hukuncin shari'ah game da ita, kamar yadda lamarin yake a saukar da ayar: "Ba ya halatta ga wani mumini ko mumina, idan Allah (SWT) da ManzonSa (ﷺ) suka yanke hukunci a kan wani al'amari, su sami zabi a cikin al'amarinsu." (TMQ 33:36). Dalilin saukar wannan ayar shi ne cewa Manzon Allah (ﷺ) ya auri 'yar uwarsa Zaynab ga bawansa Zayd, sai dan'uwanta 'Abd Allah (SWT) b. Jahsh ya ki, sai Allah (SWT) ya saukar da wannan ayar. Saboda haka, wannan shi ne sababin saukarta, kuma ka'idar nan: "Ana duba ma'anar lafazin gaba daya ba takamaiman sababin saukarsa ba" tana aiki a kanta. Wani misali kuma shi ne sababin saukar ayar gado; Manzon Allah (ﷺ) ya ziyarci Jabir b. Abd Allah (SWT) yana rashin lafiya, sai ya tambayi Manzon Allah (ﷺ): "Ta yaya zan yi da dukiyata? Me zan yi da dukiyata?", Manzon Allah (ﷺ) bai amsa masa ba har sai da aka saukar da ayar gado (hadisin da aka yarda da shi daga Jabir) — kuma wannan shi ne sababin saukarta.

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.

Haka kuma duk sababbin saukar wahayi suna irin wannan, kuma akan wannan ne ake amfani da hukuncin da aka ambata, wanda ya sha bamban da amsar tambaya, da kuma takamaimen batu. Domin takamaimen batun shi ne maudu'in da ake magana a kansa, kuma shi ne abin da ake nema lokacin da hukuncin ya zo game da shi, kuma hukuncin bai fito shi kaɗai ba, don haka yana iyakance ga wannan batun. Haka nan, kalmomin Manzon Allah ﷺ na iya kasancewa da alaƙa da takamaimen tambaya, don haka kalmomin da aka yi amfani da su a cikin amsar tambaya suna iyakance ga wannan tambayar.

In the same way, all the causes of revelation are of this type, and it is upon this that the mentioned rule applies, which is different to the reply to a question, and to a specific subject. Since the specific subject is the issue that was being talked about, and the issue that was being sought when the rule came regarding it, and the rule did not originate by itself, so, therefore, it is limited to that subject. In the same manner the words of the Messenger (saw) can be connected to a specific question, and so the words used in a reply to a question are limited to that question.

Misali, abin da Al-Bukhari ya ruwaito daga Abu Hurairah, wanda ya ce:

For example, what Al-Bukhari mentioned from Abu Hurayrah who said:

. 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 .

"Yayin da muke zaune tare da Annabi ﷺ, wani mutum ya zo ya ce: "Ya Annabin Allah ﷺ! Na halaka." Annabin Allah ﷺ ya tambaye shi abin da ya same shi. Ya amsa: "Na yi jima'i da matata alhali ina azumi." Annabin Allah ﷺ ya tambaye shi: "Kana iya samun kuɗin 'yantar da bawa?" Ya ce a'a. Annabin Allah ﷺ ya tambaye shi: "Kana iya yin azumi watanni biyu a jere?" Ya ce a'a. Annabi ﷺ ya tambaye shi: "Kana iya ciyar da talakawa sittin?" Ya ce a'a. Annabi ﷺ ya yi shiru, kuma yayin da muke cikin haka, aka kawo wa Annabi ﷺ babban kwando cike da dabino. Ya tambaya: "Ina mai tambayar?" Ya amsa: "Ga ni." Annabi ﷺ ya ce masa: "Ɗauki wannan (kwandon dabino) ka ba da sadaka da shi." Mutumin ya ce: "Shin in ba da shi ga wanda ya fi ni talauci? Na rantse da Allah, babu wani gida tsakanin duwatsun biyu na (Madina) da ya fi ni talauci." Sai Annabi ﷺ ya yi murmushi har haƙoransa na gaba suka bayyana, sannan ya ce: "Ciyar da iyalinka da shi." Lokacin da muke zaune tare da Annabi ﷺ, wani mutum ya zo ya ce: Ya Manzon Allah ﷺ, na halaka. Sai Annabi ﷺ ya tambaye shi: Me ka aikata? Ya ce: Na yi jima'i da matata da gangan a cikin watan Ramadan. Sai ya ce masa: "Kana da bawa da za ka 'yantar?" Ya ce a'a. Sai ya tambaye shi: Kana iya yin azumi watanni biyu a jere? Ya ce a'a. Sai ya ce: Kana iya ciyar da talakawa sittin? Ya ce a'a. Sai Annabi ﷺ ya jira, a lokacin ne wani ya kawo masa reshe mai dabino, sai ya ce: Ina mai tambayar? Mutumin ya amsa: Ga ni. Sai ya ce: Ɗauki wannan ka ba da sadaka da shi. Mutumin ya ce: Ya Manzon Allah ﷺ, a ba wanda ya fi ni talauci? Na rantse da Allah! Babu gida mafi talauci fiye da nawa a kewaye. Sai Annabi ﷺ ya yi dariya har haƙoransa suka bayyana, sannan ya ce: Ciyar da iyalinka da shi.

“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”.

Amsar Manzon Allah (saw) ya ba da amsa ta musamman ga tambayar da aka yi masa, saboda haka kalmomin: "ku 'yanta bawa" suna da alaka da tambayar Bedouin. Wani misalin kuma shi ne rahoton cewa lokacin da aka tambaye shi game da halaccin sayar da dabino idan ya bushe, sai Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce:

The answer of the Messenger (saw) is specific to the question asked, and so the words: “free a slave” are connected to the question of the Bedouin. Another example is the report that when he was asked about the permissibility of selling dates if they get dried, and so the Prophet (saw) asked:

. » أَيَ نْ قُصُ الرُّطَبُ إِذَا يَبِسَ؟ فَ قَالُوا: ن عََمْ، فَ قَالَ: فَلاَ إِذ اً « .

"Shin dabino masu sabo za su ragu idan suka bushe?" Suka ce eh, sai ya hana hakan" Suka amsa da eh, sai ya ce: "sai ya hana hakan". Abu Ya'la ya rawaito shi da wannan lafazin daga Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas, Al-Hakim da Ibn Hibban kuma sun tabbatar da ingancinsa. Don haka, amsar Manzon Allah (ﷺ) tana takamaimai ne ga abin da aka tambaye shi, watau sayar da dabino masu sabo da busassu, kuma don haka maganarsa: "sai ya hana hakan" tana da alaka da tambayar. Wannan ba dalili ba ne na hukuncin, a'a, amsa ce ga tambaya, kuma akwai babban bambanci tsakanin su biyun. Saboda haka, lafazin gama-gari wanda ya zo a matsayin amsa ga tambaya ba dalili ba ne na hukunci, sai dai bayani ne kawai game da al'amarin da ake magana a kai. In lafazin gama-gari ya zo yana shar'anta sabon hukunci saboda wani al'amari da ya faru, to shar'anta hukuncin zai zama gama-gari, kuma faruwar al'amarin ita ce dalilin shar'anta hukuncin. Ta haka bambancin da ke tsakanin dalili da amsar tambaya ya bayyana sarai. Saboda haka, hukuncin gama-gari yana shigar da dalilinsa da kuma abu wani, alhali kuwa amsar tambaya takamaimai ce ga tambayar, tun da maganganun Manzon Allah (ﷺ) suna da alaka da ita.

“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.

Game da tambayar da aka yi wa Manzon Allah ﷺ dangane da ruwan teku da amsarsa ﷺ:

As for the question to the Messenger (saw) regarding the sea water and his (pbuh) answer:

. » هُوَ الطَّهُورُ مَاؤُهُ الْحِلُّ مَيْتَتُه « . “Ruwan sa mai tsarkakewa ne, kuma matattunsa halal ne (a ci)” (Al-Tirmidhi ne ya ruwaito shi daga Abu Hurairah, kuma Abu ‘Isa ya ce hadisin Hasan Sahih ne). Haka kuma yana takamaiman abin da aka tambaya a kansa, wato ruwan teku. Sai dai Manzon Allah ﷺ ya yi bayani fiye da abin da aka tambaye shi ga mai tambayar. Duk da haka, amsar Manzon Allah ﷺ ta kasance takamaimai ga abin da aka tambaye shi a kai, wato ruwan teku, kuma an iyakance ta a kan hakan. Haka kuma a lokacin da aka tambaye shi game da “Budha’ah”, wato ruwan rijiya, sai ya ce:

. » هُوَ الطَّهُورُ مَاؤُهُ الْحِلُّ مَيْتَتُه « . “Its water is purifying and its dead (animals) are lawful (to eat)” (reported by Al-Tirmidhi from Abu Hurayrah and Abu ‘Isa said the narration is Hasan Sahih), it is also specific to what was asked about, which was the sea water, but the Messenger (saw) explained more than he was asked about to the questioner. It still remains as the answer of the Messenger (saw) specific to what he was asked about, which was sea water, and it is limited to that. In the same manner when he was asked about the: “Budha’ah”, well water, and he said:

. » إِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورٌ « .

"Ruwa mai tsarki ne" (wanda Al-Tirmidhi ya ruwaito daga Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri, ya ce hadisin Hasan ne, Ahmad kuma ya tabbatar da ingancinsa), wanda kuma yana da alaka da tambayar, don haka ya amsa tambayar game da ruwan rijiya, amma amsarsa ga mai tambayar ta kunshi fiye da abin da aka tambaye shi, duk da haka har yanzu ita ce amsar Manzon Allah ﷺ da ke da alaka da tambayar. Don haka aka tambaye shi game da alwala da ruwan teku, amsarsa kuma ta kasance gaba ɗaya, ta shafi alwala, Ghusl (wanka daga manyan najasa) da sauran abubuwa. A cikin littafin Al-Imam Sharh Al-Ilmam an rubuta cewa: "Me ya sa bai amsa da "eh" ba lokacin da suka ce: "Shin za mu iya yin alwala da shi?" Mu ce: domin hakan zai takaita ga yanayin larura, kuma ba haka lamarin yake ba. Haka kuma, daga takaita amsar zuwa "eh" za a fahimci cewa alwala kawai ake iya yi da shi, sauran najasa da datti kuma ba za a iya tsarkake su da shi ba."

“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”.

Saboda haka, amsar Manzon Allah (saw) game da ruwan teku da ruwan rijiya an iyakance ta ga abin da aka tambaye shi game da shi, ba ta zama gama-gari ga komai ba. Sai dai ya amsa wa mai tambaya fiye da abin da ya tambaya, amma duk da haka a cikin batun tambayarsa, kuma maganar ba game da dacewar amsar da tambayar ba ce, har za a ce amsar Manzon Allah (saw) ta fi tambayar mai tambaya fa'ida. A'a, maganar ita ce amsar ta takaita ga batun tambayar, kuma ta takaita a kan haka ba tare da ta wuce zuwa wani batun ba, ba kuma game da dacewar amsar da tambayar ba. Shawkani ya ambata a cikin Nayl Al-Awtar: "Daga cikin fa'idojin hadisin akwai halascin kara wa amsar tambaya abin da ba a tambaya ba, don takaita fa'ida (daga amsar kai tsaye) da kuma rashin wajabcin takaituwa." Bukhari ya rubuta babi a kan wannan batu mai taken: "Babi – wanda ya amsa wa mai tambaya fiye da abin da ya tambaya." Ya kuma ambata hadisin Ibn Umar cewa:

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:

. مَا يَ لْبَسُ الْمُحْرِمُ؟ فَ قَالَ: لا ي لَْبَسُ الْقَمِيصَ وَلاَ أَنَّ رَجُلاً سَأَلَ النَّبِيَّ « الْعِمَامَةَ وَلاَ السَّرَاوِيلَ وَلاَ الْبُ رْنُسَ وَلاَ ث وَْبًا مَسَّهُ الْوَرْسُ أَوْ الزَّعْفَرَانُ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ النَّ عْلَيْنِ » فَ لْيَ لْبَسْ الْخُفَّ يْنِ وَلْيَ قْطَعْهُمَا حَتَّى يَكُونَا تَحْتَ الْكَعْبَ يْنِ .

"Wani mutum ya tambayi Annabi ﷺ: "Me ya kamata Muhrim (wanda ke niyyar yin `Umra ko Hajji) ya sa?" Sai ya amsa: "Kada ya sa riga, rawani, wando, mayafi a kai, ko tufafin da aka yi wa turare da zafarani ko Wars (nau'ikan turare). Idan kuma bai da takalma, to zai iya amfani da Khuffs (safa da aka yi da yadi mai kauri ko fata), amma a yanka safar gajeru don idon sawu ya fito." Don haka ya kasance kamar an tambaye shi game da yanayin zaɓi, sai ya amsa, sannan ya ƙara bayani game da yanayin larura, wanda ba abu ne maras kyau ba ga tambayar, domin tafiya na iya kai mutum zuwa hakan." Wannan duka yana nuna cewa amsar tana iyakance ga tambayar; ka lura da kalmominsa: "ba abu ne maras kyau ba ga tambayar", ko amsar ta dace da abin da mai tambaya ya nema ko ta fi haka, amsar tana kebantuwa ga tambayar. Saboda haka, tambayar Umm Salama ta shafi kayan ado, don haka amsar Manzon Allah ﷺ tana kebantuwa ga kayan ado, kuma tana iyakance gare shi, ba ta shafar wani abu fiye da shi ba, domin amsa ce ga tambaya ba dalilin saukar hukunci ba ne. Saboda haka, amfani da wannan hadisi a matsayin hujja don tabbatar da halascin tara dukiya idan an riga an biya zakka a kanta ya nuna cewa hakan ba daidai ba ne, tun da hadisin yana kebantuwa ga kayan ado.

“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.

Dalili ta biyu: ayar Zakah tana da ma'ana ta gama-gari ga kowane tara dukiya, amma hadisin Umm Salamah yana kebe kayan ado. Don haka hadisin zai zama takamaiman bayani ga ma'anar gama-garin ayar. Saboda haka, tara dukiyar da aka haramta ita ce tara wani abu banda kayan ado, yayin da ba a haramta tara kayan ado ba idan an biya Zakah a kansu. Ba zai yiwu ta kowace fuska hadisin ya zama gama-gari ga kowane nau'in tara dukiya ba, kuma mafi sauƙin shaida da ke nuna cewa ba gama-gari ba ne shi ne: idan da gama-gari ne, to da an soke ayar, domin ayar za ta zama gama-gari, hadisin ma zai zama gama-gari, don haka zai zama soke ayar. Hadisin kuma hadisi ne na Ahad, don haka ba shi da tabbaci kamar ayar da ke da tabbaci. Hadisai ba sa iya soke Alkur'ani ko da sun kasance Mutawatir (sarkoki da yawa na ruwayoyi har hadisin ya zama tabbatacce). Wannan saboda Alkur'ani yana da tabbaci a cikin kalmominsa da ma'anarsa, kuma muna bautawa Allah (SWT) da kalmominsa da ma'anarsa, alhali hadisin Mutawatir yana da tabbaci ne a ma'anarsa kawai, ba a kalmominsa ba, kuma ba mu bautawa Allah (SWT) da kalmominsa. Saboda haka ba zai iya soke Alkur'ani ba. Idan wannan ya shafi hadisin Mutawatir, to me za a ce game da hadisin Ahad? Don haka, amfani da wannan hadisi wajen tabbatar da halaccin tara dukiya idan an biya Zakah a kanta ya zama ba inganci ba, saboda haramcin soke Alkur'ani da hadisi.

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.

Waɗanda suke izinin tara zinariya da azurfa idan an riga an biya Zakah a kansu, suna cewa hujjar halaccinsu ita ce, aayar da ta hana tara dukiya an soke ta da ayoyin da suka wajabta Zakah, kuma waɗancan ayoyi sun soke aayar tarawa ta hanyar wajabta Sadaqah, wato Zakah, a kanta. Amsar wannan ita ce, an wajabta Zakah ga Musulmi a shekara ta biyu bayan Hijira, alhali kuwa aayar tarawa an saukar da ita a shekara ta tara bayan Hijira, kuma abin da aka saukar a baya ba ya soke abin da aka saukar a baya. Bugu da ƙari, dole ne a sami hujja da ke nuna cewa wannan aaya ta soke wancan ayar domin ya zama soke-soke, kuma idan ba a sami hujjar da ke nuna wannan soke-soke ba, to ba a ɗauka a matsayin soke-soke ba. Soke-soke shi ne kawar da hukuncin da aka samo daga nassi na baya da kuma ɗaga shi ta hanyar nassi na baya, kuma soke hukuncin da ya gabata ta hanyar nassi mai zuwa yana dogara ne da cewa nassin mai zuwa ya ambaci cewa shi soke-soke ne ga hukuncin da ya gabata, kamar maganarsa:

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:

. » نهََيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ فَزُورُوهَا « .

“(A da) na hana ku ziyartar kaburbura, amma yanzu ku ziyarce su.” (Muslim ne ya ruwaito daga Buraydah) da kuma maganarsa (SWT): “Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani, idan kuna son yin shawara da Manzon Allah ﷺ a asirce, ku gabatar da sadaka kafin shawararku. Wannan ya fi alheri a gare ku kuma ya fi tsarki. Amma idan ba ku samu ba, to lalle Allah (SWT) Mai gafara ne, Mai jin ƙai.” (TMQ 58:12). Wannan ayar tana umurni da bayar da sadaka idan mutum zai zo domin yin shawara a asirce, idan zai iya, sannan sai wata ayar ta zo ta soke ta: “Shin kun ji tsoron gabatar da sadaka kafin shawararku? To idan ba ku yi ba kuma Allah (SWT) ya yafe muku, to ku tsayar da salla, ku bayar da zakka, kuma ku yi wa Allah (SWT) da Manzonsa ﷺ biyayya.” (TMQ 58:13). Wannan ayar don haka ta ɗaga umurnin biyan sadaka idan za a zo shawara a asirce. Hadisin ya bayyana a cikin matnin sa cewa wannan soke-soke ne, kuma ayar ta bayyana cewa soke-soke ne ta hanyar nuni ta maganarsa (SWT): “Shin kun ji tsoron gabatar da sadaka kafin shawararku?”. Saboda haka wajibi ne nassin da ake da'awar cewa soke-soke ne ya ƙunshi wani abu, ko a bayyane ko a alamance, da ke tabbatar da cewa soke-soke ne daga nassin da ya gabace shi. Ba ya isa a soke wani nassi saboda akwai wani saɓani da ake gani a tsakanin nassoshi biyu, domin babu saɓani tsakanin ayoyin Alƙur'ani. Game da abin da wasu malamai suka ce, cewa waɗannan ayoyin suna nuna saɓani a tsakaninsu kuma suna da'awar cewa an soke su, to matanin waɗannan ayoyin da kansu a bayyane suke cewa babu saɓani, kuma daidaita tsakanin nassoshin a bayyane yake, kuma babu wani abu a cikin ayoyin da ke nuna soke-soke. Saboda haka, wajibi ne nassin da ake da'awar cewa soke wanda ya gabace shi ne, ya ƙunshi wani abu, ko a bayyane ko ta nuni, da ke tabbatar da cewa soke-soke ne. Babu wata ayar a cikin ayoyin Zakka da ke nuna, a fili ko a kaikaice, cewa sun soke ayar da ta shafi tara dukiya, don haka ba su soke ta ba. Ko da waɗanda suke cewa idan nassi na baya ya ci karo da nassi na gaba, to nassi na gaba ya soke na baya, ba su ce ayoyin Zakka sun soke ayar tara dukiya ba, saboda babu abin da ke nuna cewa akwai karo tsakanin su biyun. Ayoyin Zakka suna kira ne zuwa biyan Zakka, ita kuma ayar tara dukiya tana kira ne zuwa barin tara dukiya. Babu karo tsakanin waɗannan al'amura guda biyu, domin ana iya biyan Zakka a kuma yi tara dukiya, kuma ana iya rashin biyan Zakka a kuma rashin tara dukiya. Wannan wani dalili ne da ke nuna cewa babu soke-soke ko da bisa wannan ra'ayi, to ta wace fuska ake da'awar soke-soke? Bugu da ƙari, an shar'anta Zakka a shekara ta biyu bayan hijira, an saukar da ayar tara dukiya a shekara ta tara bayan hijira, wato bayan shekara bakwai da wajabta Zakka, kuma ayoyin Zakka ba su ƙunshi, a fili ko a kaikaice, abin da ake buƙata don nuna cewa sun soke ayar tara dukiya ba. Sama da wannan kuma, babu karo tsakanin su, wato babu karo tsakanin ayoyin Zakka da ayar tara dukiya. Saboda haka, da'awar cewa an soke ayar tara dukiya da'awa ce ta ƙarya, don haka an ƙi ta.

Waɗanda suke iƙirarin cewa halal ne a tara zinariya da azurfa idan an biya zakkarsu suna cewa dalilin halaccinta shi ne abin da aka ruwaito a Bukhari: "daga Ibn Umar, ya ce: wani Balarabe ya tambaye shi game da ayar: 'Waɗanda ke tara zinariya da azurfa' (TMQ 9:34): Duk wanda ya tara ta, bai kuma biya zakkarta ba, to kaiwo a gare su; wannan kafin saukar ayar zakka ne, don haka lokacin da aka saukar da ita, Allah (SWT) ya sanya ta zama tsarkakewa ga dukiya." Ba za a ce wannan ruwayar daga Ibn Umar takaitawa ce ga Alkur'ani ta hanyar Sunna, ko soke Alkur'ani ta hanyar Sunna ba. Maimakon haka, wannan ruwaya bayani ne ingantacce game da wannan soke-soken, don haka tana daga cikin nau'in soke Alkur'ani da Alkur'ani, domin abin da ya soke ayar a wannan yanayi Alkur'ani ne, saboda zakka Alkur'ani ne ya wajabta ta ba Sunna ba. Don haka wajibi ne a karɓe ta, tun da ruwaya ce ingantacciya da ke bayyana cewa wannan ayar an soke ta da wata ayar, saboda haka an soke haramcin tarawa. Saboda haka, duk abin da aka biya zakka a kansa, ana iya tara shi.

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.

Amsar wannan tambayar ta fuskoki huɗu:

The answer to this is from four angles:

Na farko: Wannan hadisi ne Ahad wanda ya yi ikirarin cewa ayar an soke ta, kuma saboda haka, kamar kowane hadisi Ahad, yana cikin yanayin zato (ba tabbas ba), alhali ayar kanta tabbatacciya ce, kuma abin da yake tabbatacce ya fi wanda ba tabbatacce ba, don haka ayar ita ce ta fi cancanta, saboda babu abin da ya soke ta, sai a yi aiki da ita saboda babu soke-soke, domin ita ce ta fi cancanta, kuma an ki amincewa da ikirarin soke-soke.

First: This is an Ahad narration which claims that the verse has been abrogated, and so as it is Ahad it is indefinite like any other Ahad narration, whereas the verse itself is definite, and what is definite is preferred to what is indefinite and so the verse is preferred due to the absence of anything abrogating it, and so it is acted upon due to the absence of abrogation because it is preferred and the claim of abrogation is rejected.

Na biyu: Bayar da labari game da soke wata aya yana kama da hadisi da aka ruwaito, wanda ya ƙunshi hukunci da ke soke wani hukunci da ke cikin wata aya ta Alƙur'ani. Don haka, kamar yadda hadisi ba zai iya soke aya ba koda kuwa ya ƙunshi abin da ke nuna soke ta, haka nan labarin daga Ibn Umar ba soke aya ta Alƙur'ani ba ne kawai saboda maganarsa cewa an soke ta.

Second: The informing about the abrogation of a verse is like a reported narration which included a rule which abrogates another rule that was found in a verse of the Quran, so in the same manner that the narration cannot abrogate the verse even if it includes what indicates its abrogation, in the same way the information from Ibn Umar is not an abrogation for a verse of Quran simply by his statement that it is abrogated.

Na uku: Ibn Umar bai bayar da labari cewa ayar ta soke ta ba a matsayin bayani daga Manzon Allah ﷺ; wato, bai ruwaito cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce ayar ta soke ba. Maimakon haka, yana bayar da ra'ayinsa ne cewa ayar ta soke, domin lokacin da wani Balarabe ya tambaye shi game da ayar, ya amsa da cewa an soke ta, kuma bai ruwaito cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ne ya sanar da shi cewa an soke ta ba. Don haka ra'ayin Ibn Umar ne cewa ayar an soke ta da Zakkah. Wato, fahimtar Ibn Umar ce cewa Zakkah ta soke wannan ayar, kuma ba labari ne daga Manzon Allah ﷺ ba. Ra'ayin Ibn Umar kuma ba a ɗaukarsa a matsayin hujjar Shari'a ba, domin ra'ayin sahabi ba a ɗaukarsa a matsayin hujjar Shari'a ga wani hukunci na Shari'a, balle a ce ya soke wani ɓangare na Alkur'ani.

Third: Ibn Umar did not inform that the verse was abrogated as information from the Messenger (saw) ; in other words, he did not report that the Messenger (saw) said that the verse is abrogated. Rather he was giving his opinion that the verse has been abrogated, since when the Bedouin asked him about the verse he replied that it has been abrogated and he did not relate that the Messenger (saw) had informed him that it had been abrogated, and so it is the opinion of Ibn Umar that the verse was abrogated by Zakah. In other words, it was Ibn Umar’s understanding that Zakah abrogated this verse, and it was not a narration from the Messenger (saw) , and the opinion of Ibn Umar is not considered to be a Shari’ah evidence since the opinion of a companion is not considered to be a Shari’ah evidence for a Shari’ah rule, let alone as an abrogation of Quran.

Na huɗu: an wajabta zakka a shekara ta biyu bayan Hijira, kuma ayar da ta hana tara dukiya an saukar da ita a shekara ta tara bayan Hijira. To ta yaya hukuncin zakka da ya fara zuwa a baya zai soke ayar da aka saukar bayan shekara bakwai? Saboda haka wannan riwaya ta ƙi a cikin matanta (Dirayyatan).

Fourth: Zakah was obligated in the second year after Hijrah, and the verse which forbade hoarding was revealed in the ninth year after Hijrah, and so how can the earlier rule of Zakah abrogate a verse which was revealed seven years later? And therefore this narration is rejected from its text (Dirayyatan).

Waɗannan kusurwoyi huɗu babu shakka sun isa su nuna cewa amfani da wannan riwayar a matsayin hujja ba shi da inganci, kuma su ɓata da'awar cewa ayar ta zama mansūkh, saboda haka wannan riwayar ba ta dace a yi amfani da ita a matsayin hujjar halaccin tara dukiya idan an riga an biya zakka a kanta ba.

These four angles are without a doubt sufficient to show that using this narration as evidence is invalid, and to invalidate the claim that the verse is abrogated, and accordingly this narration is not suitable to be used as a proof that it is permissible to hoard if Zakah had been paid upon it.

Kuma waɗanda suke halatta tara dukiya matuƙar an biya zakkarta, suna cewa hujjarsu ita ce musulmi ba shi da wani nauyin kuɗi bayan zakka, kuma hujjoji a kan haka suna da yawa, kamar hadísin da aka yarda da shi daga Manzon Allah ﷺ zuwa ga ɗan ƙauye.

And those who permit hoarding if the Zakah is paid upon it say that the evidence is that the Muslim is not accountable financially beyond Zakah, and the evidences for this are many, such as the agreed upon narration of the Messenger (saw) to the Bedoiun:

. الزَّكَاةَ، فَإِذَا هُوَ يَسْأَلُ عَنْ الإِسْلامِ ... إلى أن قال: وَذكََرَ لَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ...« » قَالَ: هَلْ عَلَيَّ غَيْرُهَا؟ قَالَ: لا، إِلا أَنْ تَطَوَّعَ .

ya kasance yana tambaya game da Musulunci… har ya ce: Manzon Allah ﷺ ya gaya masa game da Zakka (sadakar wajibi). Mai tambaya ya ce: "Shin ina da wajibci in biya wani abu banda wannan?" Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce, "A'a, sai dai duk abin da za ka biya da son ranka."; da abin da Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce:

“he was asking about Islam…till he said: And the Messenger of Allah (saw) (saw) told him about the Zakah (obligatory charity). The inquirer asked: "Am I obliged to pay anything besides this?" The Messenger of Allah (saw) (saw) said, "No, but whatever you pay voluntarily out of your own free will.” and what the Messenger (saw) said:

.» لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَ ق سِوَى الزَّكَاة « .

"Babu wani abin da ya wajaba a kan dukiya sai Zakka." (wanda Ibn Maja ya ruwaito daga Fatimah 'yar Qais), da kuma ruwayar da Tirmizi ya ruwaito, wadda ya ɗauka a matsayin Hasan, daga Abu Hurairah cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce:

“There is nothing due on wealth other then Zakah.” (reported by Ibn Maja from Fatimah Bint Qays), and the narration in Tirmidhi that he considered Hasan from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (saw) said:

.» إِذَا أَدَّيْتَ زَكَاةَ مَالِكَ فَقَدْ قَضَيْتَ مَا عَلَيْكَ « .

“Idan ka biya Zakah, to ka cika abin da ake bukata daga gare ka.” Waɗannan riwayoyi suna nuna cewa babu wani abu a kan dukiyar Musulmi sai Zakah, saboda kalmomin Manzon Allah ﷺ:

“When you pay the Zakah you have fulfilled what is required of you”. These narrations indicate that there is nothing upon a Muslim’s wealth except for Zakah, so the words of the Messenger (saw) :

. » لَيْسَ عَلَيْكَ « .

"Babu wani abu da ya rataya a wuyanka" da kuma:

“Nothing else is upon you” and:

.» لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَ ق « .

"babu wani abu da ya wajaba a kan dukiya"; da kuma:

“there is nothing due on wealth” and:

. » فَقَدْ قَضَيْتَ مَا عَلَيْكَ « .

"Kun cika abin da aka wajabta muku" lafazi ne na gabaɗaya, saboda haka yana kunshe da duk abin da ya wajaba daga dukiya. Wannan kuma yana nuna halaccin tara dukiya, muddin an biya Zakkar da ta wajaba akan Musulmi.

“you have fulfilled what is required of you” are general and so they encompass anything obligated from wealth. And this, therefore, indicates the permissibility of hoarding as long as the Zakah that is obligatory upon the Muslim is paid.

Jawabin wannan shi ne cewa haramcin tara dukiya (kanzul-mal) wani al'amari ne daban da zakka, kuma bayanin da aka ambata yana hana wajabta wani haqqi a bayan zakka, amma hakan ba ya hana kasancewar wasu hukunce-hukuncen da ke da alaqa da dukiya. Tara dukiya tana cikin hukunce-hukuncen da suka shafi dukiya, ba cikin haqqoqin wajibi da ke kan dukiyar ba. Saboda haka Allah (SWT) bai wajabta wani haqqi banda zakka a kan dukiyar da Musulmi ya mallaka ta fuskar kasancewarta dukiya, amma Ya shar'anta wasu hukunce-hukunce game da dukiya waɗanda ba su cikin hukunce-hukuncen zakka ba, kamar hukunce-hukuncen riba a zinare da azurfa, da waɗanda suka shafi musayar zinare da azurfa, da waɗanda suka shafi zinare da azurfa da aka samu a binne a ƙasa. Dukkansu hukunce-hukuncen dukiya ne. Hukunce-hukuncen dukiyar da aka samu a ƙasa suna cikin hukunce-hukuncen kuɗi kamar sauran hukunce-hukunce, ba cikin haqqoqin wajibi da ke kan dukiya ba. Don haka waɗannan hadisai ba su da alaqa da tara dukiya, kuma ba sa nuna rashin haramcin tara dukiya idan an riga an biya zakkarta. Saboda haka, amfani da waɗannan hadisai a matsayin hujja ya ruguje.

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.

Tare da sanin cewa hadisai biyu na ƙarshe sun kasance abin jayayya, domin Al-Hafiz ya ɗauke su duka a matsayin da'ifai a cikin Al-Talkhis, musamman hadisin da Ibn Maja ya riwaito, domin yana da rauni kuma matnin sa yana karo da wasu.

This is with the knowledge that the two last narrations are disputed over as Al-Hafiz considered them both weak in Al- Talkhis, and especially the narration from Ibn Maja, since it is weak with a text that is conflicting.

Ibn Majah ya ruwaito a cikin Sunan dinsa: Ali bin Muhammad ya gaya mana daga Yahya bin Adam daga Sharik daga Abu Hamza daga Al-Sha'bi daga Fatimah bint Qays cewa ta ji Manzon Allah ﷺ yana cewa:

Ibn Maja reported in his Sunan: Ali Bin Muhammad told us from Yahya Bin Adam from Sharik from Abu Hamza from Al- Sha’bi from Fatimah Bint Qays that she heard the Messenger (saw) say:

.» لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَ ق سِوَى الزَّكَاة « .

"Babu wani abin da ake bin dukiya da shi sai Zakka."

“There is nothing due on wealth other than Zakah”.

Amma Al-Tirmidhi ya ruwaito shi a cikin Sunan dinsa: Muhammad b. Ahmad Bin Muddawiya daga Al-Aswad Bin Amir daga Sharik daga Abu Hamza daga Al-Sha’bi daga Fatimah Bint Qays wadda ta ce: "Na tambaya, ko kuwa an tambayi Manzon Allah ﷺ, game da Zakka, sai ya ce:

But Al-Tirmidhi reported it in his Sunan: Muhammad b. Ahmad Bin Muddawiya from Al-Aswad Bin Amir from Sharik from Abu Hamza from Al-Sha’bi from Fatimah Bint Qays who said I asked, or the Prophet (saw) was asked, about Zakah, and so he said:

.» إِنَّ فِي الْمَالِ لَحَقًّا سِوَى الزَّكَاة « .

"Lallai akwai wajibi a kan dukiya banda zakka."

“Indeed there is a duty on wealth aside from Zakah”.

Sanadin wannan yana tabbatarwa, kuma ƙin haƙƙi sai dai zakka yana da rauni. Raunin yana daga Sharik, duk da cewa amintacce ne, amma yana da mummunan ƙwaƙwalwa; kuma daga Abu Hamza, wanda aka yarda cewa an ɗauke shi a matsayin mai rauni saboda saɓaninsa da mummunan ƙwaƙwalwarsa. Saboda wannan dalili ne ya ambaci riwayar sau ɗaya tana tabbatarwa, sau ɗaya kuma tana ƙi.

Its chain confirming, and rejecting the right except for Zakah is weak, and the weakness from Sharik though he is trustworthy but he had a bad memory, and from Abu Hamza who is agreed to be considered weak due to his contradictions and bad memory, and for this reason he mentioned the narration once confirming and once rejecting.

Waɗannan su ne dukkan hujjojin waɗanda suke cewa tara dukiya haramun ba ne muddin an biya zakka a kanta. Wato, dukkan hujjojin da za a iya samun wani kamanni na hujja daga cikinsu wanda ke nuna halaccin tara dukiya idan an biya zakka a kanta. Hujjoji ne marasa ƙarfi, kuma abin da ya bayyana shi ne ƙoƙarin neman wata hanya ta amfani da su a matsayin hujja. Ana iya cewa babu abin da zai halatta amfani da su a matsayin hujja. Hujjar da ta isa ta bayyana rashin ingancin amfani da waɗannan hujjoji ita ce, ayar da ta shafi tara dukiya an saukar da ita shekara bakwai bayan wajabcin zakka. Don haka, a bayyane yake cewa ayar a fili take cewa tara dukiya haramun ce gabaɗaya, koda an biya zakka a kanta.

These are all the evidences of those who say that hoarding is permitted as long as Zakah has been paid upon it, in other words, all the evidences from which it is possible to find a semblance of an evidence that indicates the permissibility of hoarding if Zakah had been paid upon it, and they are flimsy evidences, and what is apparent is the effort to catch any way of using them as evidence, and it may be possible to say that there is nothing which justifies their use as evidence. The evidence that the verse regarding hoarding was revealed seven years after the obligation of Zakah is enough to explain the invalidity of using these evidences as proof. Therefore, it is clear that the verse is explicit that hoarding is comprehensively forbidden (Haram) even if Zakah had been paid upon it.

Sauran batu ɗaya ya rage, shi ne: menene ma'anar kalmomin "al-kanz" (tara dukiya) a cikin ayar? Amsar ita ce, abin da ake nufi da tara dukiya shi ne tara dukiya bisa wata dukiya ba tare da buƙata ba. A harshen Larabci, "al-kanz" na nufin tara dukiya bisa wata dukiya da kuma adana ta, kuma ana tara dukiya wato a tattara ta, kuma "kanz" shi ne duk abin da aka tattara tare, a ƙarƙashin ƙasa ko a saman ƙasa. An ambace shi a cikin kamus na Al-Muheet: "Al-Kanz: dukiyar da aka binne, kuma ana tara ta, da zinariya da azurfa da duk abin da ake amfani da shi wajen kare dukiya". Imam Abu Ja'far Al-Tabari ya ce: "Al-Kanz: Duk abin da aka tattara tare, ko an ajiye shi a ƙarƙashin ƙasa ko a saman ƙasa", kuma wanda ya rubuta Al-'Ain ya ce: "kuma an ajiye shi". Wannan ita ce ma'anar "al-kanz" a harshe, kuma ana fassara Alƙur'ani ta ma'anar harshe kaɗai, sai dai idan shari'a ta kawo wata ma'ana ta shari'a ga wani abu, to a fassara shi da ma'anar shari'a. Kalmar "al-kanz" kuma ba ta da wata ingantacciyar ma'anar shari'a da aka danganta da ita, don haka sai a fassara ta da ma'anar harshe kaɗai, wato kawai tara dukiya bisa wata dukiya ba tare da buƙata ba, don kanta, ana ɗaukarsa tara dukiya abin zargi wanda Allah (SWT) ya yi alkawarin azaba mai raɗaɗi ga wanda ya aikata shi. Saboda haka, binne dukiya na nufin a adana ta ba tare da buƙata ba, wato a ajiye ta, domin idan dukiya don a kashe ta ce, ba a buƙatar binne ta ko ajiye ta. Dangane da haka, abin da ake nufi da tara dukiya a cikin ayar shi ne ajiye ta ba tare da buƙatar da za a kashe ta a kanta ba, don haka ya shafi duk wani nau'in ajiye zinariya da azurfa ba tare da buƙata ba.

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.