Kuweka mali kwa wingi bila kuitumia ni jambo lililokatazwa, hata kama zakat inatolewa kutoka kwake.

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

Dalili yake ni maneno ya Allah (SWT):

Its evidence is the words of Allah (swt):

"Na wale wanaohifadhi dhahabu na fedha na wasizitoe katika njia ya Allah (SWT) - wabashirie adhabu iliyo chungu." (TMQ 9:34), ambayo ni dalili ya katazo lisilo na masharti la kuhifadhi mali. Ingawa aya hii iliteremshwa kuhusu Watu wa Kitabu, maneno yake ni ya jumla, na sisi tunaelekezwa nayo kama inavyodhihirika tangu mwanzo wa aya, inayosema:

“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:

Enyi mlioamini, hakika wengi miongoni mwa maulamaa na watawa hula mali za watu kwa dhulma na huwazuia na njia ya Allah (SWT). Na wale wanaohifadhi dhahabu na fedha.

“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).

Ushahidi kwamba aya hiyo ilikataza kuweka akiba ya dhahabu na fedha kwa ujumla na bila kizuizi, bila kujali kama Zakah imelipwa juu yake au la, ni kama ifuatavyo:

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:

Kwanza: ujumla wa aya hii. Maandishi ya aya, pamoja na maana yake, ni ushahidi kwamba katazo la kukusanya mali ya dhahabu na fedha ni katazo la jumla. Kwa hiyo, maoni ya kuruhusu kukusanya mali baada ya kulipa Zakah ni kuacha hukumu ya aya ambayo dalili yake ni ya wazi kabisa. Hili haliwezi kukubalika isipokuwa kwa ushahidi utakaobadilisha maana ya aya au kuifuta, na hakuna andiko sahihi linalolitoa kutoka maana yake ya asili. Haiwezekani pia kuwepo ushahidi wa kulitoa kutoka maana yake ya asili, kwa kuwa dalili yake ni ya wazi kabisa. Basi hakuna kilichobaki isipokuwa kuwepo ushahidi wa kuifuta, na hakuna ushahidi wa kuifuta. Kwa hiyo, hukumu yake inabaki imethibitika, nayo ni katazo la kukusanya mali, hata kama Zakah imelipwa juu yake; yaani, katazo la jumla lisilo na masharti la kukusanya mali.

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.

Pili: Ahmad alipokea hadithi kwa mnyororo sahihi kutoka kwa Abu Umamah, ambaye alisema:

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 .

. 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 .

Mtu mmoja kutoka Ahl Al-Suffah alifariki, na Dinari moja ilipatikana katika nguo zake (kitambaa cha kiunoni); Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Atachomwa moto", kisha mwingine alifariki na Dinari mbili zilipatikana juu yake, na Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Atachomwa moto mara mbili". Hii ina maana kwamba ni marufuku kabisa kuhifadhi dhahabu na fedha, hata kama ni Dinari mbili au hata moja tu, mradi inahifadhiwa, yaani kuweka mali bila haja ya kuitumia. Na Mjumbe ﷺ alisema hivyo kuhusu watu hawa wawili kwa sababu walikuwa miongoni mwa wale waliokuwa wakiishi kwa sadaka, na bado walikuwa na dhahabu juu yao; ndiyo maana alisema: "Atachomwa moto" na: "Atachomwa moto mara mbili", akirejelea kauli Yake (SWT): "Siku itakapopashwa moto katika moto wa Jahannamu, na kwa hayo zitachomwa paji zao, mbavu zao na migongo yao." (TMQ 9:35), ambayo ni sehemu ya aya za kuhifadhi mali; yaani, alikuwa akirejelea aya zinazohusu kuhifadhi mali. Hii ni dalili ya katazo kamili na la jumla la kuhifadhi mali, bila kujali kama kiasi hicho kimefikia thamani ambayo Zakat inapaswa kutolewa juu yake au la, na bila kujali kama Zakat imetolewa juu yake au la; hivyo kuhifadhi mali yoyote ni marufuku. Tatu: Kiunganishi katika kauli Yake (SWT): "Wala msiitumie katika njia ya Allah (SWT)." (TMQ 9:34) kinalinganishwa na kauli Yake (SWT): "Na wale wanaohifadhi dhahabu na fedha." (TMQ 9:34), na hivyo kuonyesha kwamba aya hii inajumuisha kanuni mbili: ya kwanza ni kuhifadhi mali, na ya pili ni kutotumia katika njia ya Allah (SWT). Maandishi ya aya yanaonyesha tishio la adhabu kali inayohusiana na mambo haya mawili; yaani, kwa wale wanaohifadhi dhahabu na fedha na wale wasioitumia katika njia ya Allah (SWT), basi wabashirie adhabu kali. Kwa hiyo, inadhihirika wazi kwamba yule ambaye haweki akiba lakini hatoi katika njia ya Allah (swt), amezingirwa na tishio hilo, na vilevile yule anayetoa katika njia ya Allah (swt) lakini anahifadhi mali, naye pia amezingirwa na tishio hilo. Al-Qurtubi alisema: “Yeyote asiyehifadhi, na anayezuia kutoa katika njia ya Allah (swt), lazima naye awe sawa na huyo.” Maana ya maneno: “katika njia ya Allah (swt)” katika aya ni Jihadi, kwa kuwa yametajwa pamoja na kutoa. Maneno: “katika njia ya Allah (swt)” yanapounganishwa na kutoa, maana yake ni Jihadi, isipokuwa pale panapopatikana dalili inayoyaondoa kwenye maana hiyo. Kwa msingi huo, maneno: “wala hawaitoi” hayafai kuwa ushahidi kwamba, ikiwa watahifadhi mali kisha wakatoa sehemu yake katika njia ya Allah (swt), hawamo katika adhabu, kwa sababu maana ya aya si kwamba: “Na yeyote anayehifadhi mali kwa kuwa hakuitoa katika njia ya Allah (swt), basi mbashirie adhabu kali,” ambapo kiunganishi kingekuwa cha kufafanua; na hivyo, ikiwa mali iliyohifadhiwa ingetolewa katika njia ya Allah (swt), mhifadhi hangeadhibiwa. Badala yake, maana ya aya ni kwamba: yeyote anayehifadhi, basi mbashirie adhabu, na yeyote asiyetoa katika njia ya Allah (swt), basi mbashirie adhabu. Kiunganishi ni cha kutofautisha na si cha kufafanua. Kwa hiyo, katazo la kuhifadhi mali ni la jumla, bila kujali kama sehemu yake imetolewa katika njia ya Allah (swt) au la, na suala la katazo la kuhifadhi mali ni suala tofauti na katazo la kutotoa katika njia ya Allah (swt). Kwa msingi huo, inaonekana wazi kwamba aya inakataza kuhifadhi mali hata kama Zakah imeshalipwa juu yake, na hata kama sehemu yake imetolewa katika njia ya Allah (swt).

Nne: Bukhari alipokea kutoka kwa Zayd bin Wahb aliyesema: "Nilipita karibu na Abu Dharr huko Al-Rabtha, nikamuuliza: Nini kimekuleta mahali hapa? Akajibu: Tulikuwa Ash-Sham ambako nilikuwa na mzozo na Mu'awiyah kuhusu"

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:

"Na wale wanaohifadhi dhahabu na fedha wala hawazitoi katika njia ya Allah (swt)." (TMQ 9:34) Basi Mu'awiyah akasema: "Hii iliteremshwa kuhusu Watu wa Kitabu." Nami nikasema: "Iliteremshwa kuhusiana nao na pia kuhusiana nasi," na hili ndilo lililokuwa suala kati yetu. Basi akamwandikia Uthman akilalamika juu yangu, na Uthman akaniandikia kuniamuru nije Madinah. Nilipofika huko, watu walinizunguka kana kwamba hawajawahi kuniona kabla. Nilimweleza Uthman jambo hili, naye akasema: "Ukipenda, unaweza kukaa karibu." Hii ndiyo iliyonileta mahali hapa, na kama Mhabeshi angenitawala, ningemsikiliza na kumtii. Basi, tofauti kati ya Abu Dharr na Mu'awiyah ilikuwa kuhusu nani aya hii iliteremshwa kumhusu, si kuhusu maana yake. Na kama Mu'awiyah au 'Uthman (ra) wangekuwa na riwaya sahihi inayosema kwamba zaka ikitolewa kutoka mali, haitahesabiwa kuwa hifadhi, Mu'awiyah angeitumia dhidi ya maoni ya Abu Dharr, na Abu Dharr angenyamazishwa, au 'Uthman (ra) angeitumia kumnyamazisha. Hii inaonyesha kwamba ujumla wa aya na hali yake isiyo na kikomo haukuwa chanzo cha tofauti kati ya Mu'awiyah na Abu Dharr, wala kati ya Mu'awiyah na 'Uthman (ra), na haijathibitishwa kwamba walikuwa na riwaya inayopingana nayo.

“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.

Kwa hiyo, ni wazi kwamba aya hii ni ya jumla, inayohusu dhahabu na fedha zote, bila kujali kama baadhi yake ilitumika katika Jihad, na kama Zakah ililipwa juu yake, na kama kiasi kilifikia kiwango kinachofanya Zakah kuwa wajibu au la. Kwa hiyo, kuhifadhi (kukusanya na kuweka akiba) mali hii yote ni haramu.

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).

Wale wanaoruhusu kuweka akiba (kuhifadhi mali) endapo Zakat imeshalipwa juu yake hawana ushahidi wa kweli, na ushahidi wao wote haukubaliwi kwa sababu ya udhaifu wake na minyororo dhaifu ya wapokezi. Ingawa Bukhari aliandika sura yenye kichwa: "Sura – Si hazina pale Zakat inapokuwa imelipwa juu yake", hakuleta hata hadithi moja inayoonyesha kichwa hicho, kwa kuwa hakuna hata moja aliyoiona kuwa sahihi. Hadithi zote zinazotumiwa kama ushahidi wa kuruhusiwa kuhifadhi mali baada ya kulipwa Zakat si sahihi isipokuwa moja tu. Hiyo ni hadithi kuhusu vito vya thamani iliyopokewa na Umm Salamah. Hadithi nyingine zote zilizopokewa kuhusu suala hili zinachukuliwa kuwa za uongo, na zimekosolewa kwa upande wa mnyororo wa wapokezi na kwa upande wa maudhui ya hadithi.

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.

Kuhusu simulizi ya Umm Salamah ambayo wanaitumia kama ushahidi wa kuthibitisha uhalali wa kuweka akiba ya dhahabu na fedha endapo Zakah inatolewa juu yake, ni kama ifuatavyo: Abu Dawud ameipokea kupitia mnyororo wa wapokezi wa Thabit b. Ajlan, kutoka kwa Ataa, kutoka kwa Umm Salamah, aliyesema:

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 .

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

“Nilikuwa nikivaa mapambo ya dhahabu. Nilimuuliza: Je, hiyo ni hazina (Kanz), ee Mtume ﷺ wa Allah (SWT)? Akajibu: kile kinachofikia kiwango ambacho Zakat inawajibika juu yake, si hazina (Kanz) pale Zakat inapokuwa imelipwa.” Neno lililotumika katika simulizi ni Al-Awdhah, ambalo ni aina ya mapambo. Limetajwa katika kamusi ya Al-Muhit: “Al-Wadeh…na ni mapambo ya fedha na wingi wake ni Awdhah”. Simulizi hii ni dhaifu kwa sababu Thabit b. Ajlan ana utata anapokuwa ndiye msimulizi pekee katika simulizi. Al-Dhahabi alisema kuhusu Thabit katika wasifu wake: Miongoni mwa simulizi zilizokataliwa kutoka kwa Thabit ni simulizi ya ‘Attab kutoka kwa ‘Ata’ kutoka kwa Umm Salamah. Licha ya hayo, hata kama ingekuwa sahihi, inahusu tu mapambo ambayo wanawake huvaa, na haichukuliwi kuwa hazina ikiwa thamani yake imefikia Nisab, na Zakat juu yake imeshalipwa. Hii ndiyo dalili ya kulipa Zakat juu ya mapambo na kwamba yametolewa kama kitu cha pekee kutoka katika jumla ya kuweka hazina. Simulizi hii haifai kutumika kama dalili ya kuruhusiwa kuweka hazina endapo Zakat imelipwa juu yake, kwa sababu mbili:

“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:

Kwanza: Hadithi hii ilikuja kama jibu la swali, na kila matini ambayo ni jibu la swali, au ambayo ilikuja kuhusu somo maalum, lazima inakomea kwenye kile swali lilihusu, na kwenye somo hilo maalum; haichukuliwi kuwa ya jumla kwa kila kitu, kwa kuwa maneno yake yameunganishwa na swali, yaani na somo maalum, hivyo ni mahsusi na yanakomea kwenye swali na somo hilo, wala hayatumiki zaidi ya hapo. Kwa hiyo hadithi hii inahusu vito vya dhahabu na fedha pekee, kwa hiyo ikiwa Zakah inalipwa juu ya vito, ni ruhusa kuvihifadhi, na kitu kingine chochote hakiruhusiwi. Haiwezi kusemwa kwamba kanuni ya Shari'ah ni: "zingatiwa ni ujumla wa maneno wala si kubainishwa kwa sababu", na kwamba maneno hapa ni ya jumla, hivyo hayajabainishwa kwa vito, bali yanajumuisha vito na kitu kingine chochote. Hili haliwezi kusemwa, kwa sababu kanuni hiyo ni kwa sababu ya hukumu (illah), si kwa jibu la swali au somo maalum. Ni kanuni sahihi, na matini yake yanaonyesha kwamba ni kanuni ya sababu tu na si kitu kingine, kwani inasema: "si kwa kubainishwa kwa sababu", na kuna tofauti kati ya sababu na somo lililobainishwa, na kati ya sababu na jibu la swali.

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.

Sababu ni pale tukio linapotokea kisha hukumu ya Shari'ah inateremshwa kuhusiana nalo, kama ilivyo kwa kisa cha kuteremka kwa aya: "Hapana kwa mwanamume muumini wala mwanamke muumini, Allah (swt) na Mtume wake (ﷺ) wanapoamua jambo, kwamba wawe na hiari katika jambo lao." (TMQ 33:36). Sababu ya kuteremka aya hii ni kwamba Mtume (ﷺ) alimuoza binamu yake Zaynab kwa mtumishi wake Zayd, kisha kaka yake 'Abd Allah (swt) b. Jahsh akakataa, ndipo Allah (swt) akateremsha aya hii. Basi, hii ndiyo sababu ya kuteremka, na kanuni: "Kinachozingatiwa ni ujumla wa maneno wala si ukomo wa sababu" inatumika juu yake. Mfano mwingine ni sababu ya kuteremka aya kuhusu mirathi; Mtume (ﷺ) alimtembelea Jabir b. Abd Allah (swt) alipokuwa mgonjwa, naye akamwuliza Mjumbe wa Allah (ﷺ): "Nifanye nini na mali yangu? Nifanye nini na mali yangu?", na Mtume (ﷺ) hakumjibu hadi aya ya mirathi ilipoteremshwa (hadithi iliyokubaliwa kutoka kwa Jabir), na hii ndiyo ikawa sababu ya kuteremka.

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.

Vivyo hivyo hivyo, sababu zote za kushuka kwa Aya (asbaabu An-Nuzuul) ni za aina hii, na juu yake ndipo inapotumika kanuni iliyotajwa, ambayo ni tofauti na jibu la swali, na na mada mahususi. Kwa kuwa mada mahususi ni jambo lililokuwa likizungumziwa, na jambo lililokuwa likitafutwa wakati kanuni ilipoteremka kuhusiana nalo; na kanuni haikutokea yenyewe tu, hivyo basi, inakomewa kwenye mada hiyo. Vilevile, maneno ya Mtume ﷺ yanaweza kuunganishwa na swali mahususi, na hivyo maneno yaliyotumika katika jibu la swali yanakomewa kwenye swali hilo.

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.

Kwa mfano, kile ambacho Al-Bukhari amekitaja kutoka kwa Abu Hurayrah aliyesema:

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 .

. 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 .

Tulipokuwa tumekaa pamoja na Mtume ﷺ, alikuja mtu mmoja akasema, "Ee Mtume wa Allah! Nimeangamia." Mtume ﷺ akamuuliza, ni nini kimekupata? Akajibu, "Nilimwingilia mke wangu nikiwa katika funga." Mtume ﷺ akamuuliza, "Je, unaweza kumwachia huru mtumwa?" Akajibu kwa hapana. Mtume ﷺ akamuuliza, "Je, unaweza kufunga miezi miwili mfululizo?" Akajibu kwa hapana. Mtume ﷺ akamuuliza, "Je, unaweza kuwalisha maskini sitini?" Akajibu kwa hapana. Mtume ﷺ alinyamaza, na wakati tukiwa katika hali hiyo, kikapelekwa kwa Mtume ﷺ kikapu kikubwa kilichojaa tende. Akauliza, "Yuko wapi muulizaji?" Akajibu, "Mimi (niko hapa)." Mtume ﷺ akamwambia, "Chukua hiki (kikapu cha tende) ukitoe kama sadaka." Yule mtu akasema, "Je, nikitoe kwa mtu maskini kuliko mimi? Kwa Allah, hakuna familia kati ya milima yake miwili (yaani Madina) iliyo maskini kuliko mimi." Mtume ﷺ akacheka hadi meno yake ya kutafuna yakaonekana, kisha akasema, "Walishe familia yako kwa hiki."

“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”.

Jibu la Mtume ﷺ linahusu swali lililoulizwa, na hivyo maneno: "mwache huru mtumwa" yanahusiana na swali la Mbedui. Mfano mwingine ni taarifa kwamba alipoulizwa kuhusu kuruhusiwa kuuza tende zikikauka, Mtume ﷺ aliuliza:

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 « .

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

"Je, tende mbichi zitapungua zikikauka?" Walisema ndiyo, basi akakataza hilo," na wakajibu ndiyo, basi akasema: "basi akakataza hilo." Imepokewa na Abu Ya'la kwa maneno haya kutoka kwa Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas, na Al-Hakim na Ibn Hibban wameithibitisha. Kwa hiyo, jibu la Mtume ﷺ linahusu kile alichoulizwa, yaani kuuza tende mbichi kwa tende kavu, na hivyo maneno yake: "basi akakataza hilo" yameunganishwa na swali. Hii si sababu ya hukumu; ni jibu la swali, na kuna tofauti kubwa kati ya hivyo viwili. Kwa msingi huo, maneno ya jumla yanayokuja kama jibu la swali si sababu ya hukumu; ni maelezo tu ya jambo lililoulizwa. Kama maneno ya jumla yangekuja kuweka hukumu mpya kwa jambo lililotokea, basi uwekaji wa hukumu ungekuwa wa jumla, na kutokea kwa jambo hilo ndiko kungekuwa sababu ya kuwekwa kwa hukumu. Hivyo tofauti pana kati ya sababu na jibu la swali inadhihirika. Kwa hiyo, hukumu ya jumla huhusisha sababu yake na mengineyo, ilhali jibu la swali linahusu swali hilo tu, kwa kuwa maneno ya Mtume ﷺ yameunganishwa nalo.

“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.

Kuhusu swali lililoulizwa kwa Mtume ﷺ kuhusu maji ya bahari, na jibu lake ﷺ:

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

» هُوَ الطَّهُورُ مَاؤُهُ الْحِلُّ مَيْتَتُه « . “Maji yake ni safi na viumbe vyake waliokufa ni halali (kuliwa)” (ameipokea Al-Tirmidhi kutoka kwa Abu Hurayrah, na Abu ‘Isa amesema kuwa riwaya hii ni Hasan Sahih). Pia hukumu hii inahusu kile kilichoulizwa, ambacho ni maji ya bahari, lakini Mtume ﷺ alieleza zaidi ya alivyoulizwa na yule aliyeuliza. Bado ni jibu la Mtume ﷺ linalohusu kile alichoulizwa, yaani maji ya bahari, na limekomewa hapo. Vivyo hivyo, alipoulizwa kuhusu: “Budha’ah”, maji ya kisima, naye akasema:

. » 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 « .

. » إِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورٌ « .

"maji ni safi" (imepokewa na Al-Tirmidhi kutoka kwa Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri, akasema ni Hasan, na Ahmad akaithibitisha), ambayo pia inahusiana na swali hili. Hivyo alijibu swali kuhusu maji ya kisima, lakini jibu lake kwa muulizaji lilijumuisha zaidi ya alichoulizwa, na bado ni jibu la Mtume ﷺ linalohusiana na swali. Aliulizwa kuhusu udhu kwa maji ya bahari, na jibu lake lilikuwa la jumla likijumuisha udhu, Ghusl (kuoga kwa janaba) na mengineyo. Katika kitabu Al-Imam Sharh Al-Ilmam imeandikwa: "kwa nini hakujibu kwa ndiyo alipoulizwa: je, tunaweza kutawadha nayo?" Tunasema: kwa sababu jibu lingekuwa limekomewa kwenye hali ya dharura, na hilo si sahihi. Pia, kutokana na kufungwa kwa jibu kuwa "ndiyo", ingeeleweka kwamba kwa maji hayo udhu tu ndio unaweza kufanywa, na kwamba najisi na uchafu uliosalia hauwezi kusafishwa nayo.

“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”.

Kwa hiyo, jibu la Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ kuhusu maji ya bahari na maji ya kisima limebaki kwenye lile alilo ulizwa, wala si la jumla kwa kila kitu. Hata hivyo, alimjibu muulizaji kwa zaidi ya alichokiuliza, lakini bado ndani ya mada ya swali lake, na mjadala haihusu kuafikiana kwa jibu na swali, kiasi kwamba ingesemwa kwamba jibu la Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ lilikuwa pana kuliko swali la muulizaji. Bali mjadala ni kwamba jibu lilibaki ndani ya mada ya swali, likakomea hapo bila kwenda kwenye mada nyingine, na si kuhusu kuafikiana kwa jibu na swali. Shawkani alisema katika Nayl Al-Awtar: "Na miongoni mwa faida za hadithi hii ni kuruhusiwa kuongeza katika jibu la swali, ili kupanua faida (kutoka kwenye jibu la moja kwa moja), na kutokuwa na lazima ya kubanwa." Bukhari aliandika sura kuhusu suala hili yenye kichwa: "Mlango – ni nani anayemjibu muulizaji kwa zaidi ya alichokiuliza." Na akataja hadithi ya Ibn Umar kwamba:

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 .

. 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 .

“Mtu mmoja alimuuliza Nabii ﷺ: ‘Muhrim (Muislamu anayekusudia kufanya ‘Umra au Hijja) avae nguo gani?’ Akajibu: ‘Asivae shati, kilemba, suruali, vazi la kichwani wala nguo iliyotiwa zafarani au Wars (aina za manukato). Na ikiwa hana viatu, basi aweze kutumia Khuffs (soksi zilizotengenezwa kwa kitambaa kizito au ngozi), lakini soksi hizo zikatwe chini ili vifundo vya miguu viwe wazi.’ Hivyo ilikuwa kana kwamba aliulizwa kuhusu hali ya kuchagua, na kwa hiyo akajibu hilo, kisha akatoa maelezo ya ziada kuhusu hali ya dharura, jambo ambalo si ajabu kuhusiana na swali hilo kwa kuwa safari inaweza kupelekea hali hiyo.” Haya yote yanaonyesha kwamba jibu linawekewa mipaka na swali. Angalia maneno yake: “si ajabu kuhusiana na swali”. Iwe jibu limelingana na alichouliza muulizaji au limezidi alichouliza, jibu linahusu swali husika. Kwa sababu hiyo, swali la Umm Salamah lilihusu mapambo ya vito, na hivyo jibu la Mjumbe ﷺ linahusu vito tu, na haliwezi kutumika kwa jambo lolote zaidi ya hilo, kwa kuwa ni jibu la swali na si sababu ya kuteremshwa kwa hukumu. Kwa hiyo, matumizi ya hadithi hii kama dalili ya kuruhusiwa kuhifadhi mali ikiwa Zakah imekwisha kulipwa juu yake yameonekana kuwa batili, kwa kuwa hadithi hiyo inahusu vito pekee.

“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.

Sababu ya pili: aya ya Zakat ni ya jumla kwa kila mkusanyiko wa mali (kanzi), na hadithi ya Umm Salamah inahusu vito pekee, hivyo hadithi hiyo ni ufafanuzi wa jumla ya aya. Kwa hiyo kanzi inayokatazwa ni kukusanya kitu chochote isipokuwa vito, lakini si haramu kukusanya vito ikiwa Zakat yake imelipwa. Haiwezekani kwa upande wowote kuifanya hadithi iwe ya jumla kwa kila aina ya kanzi, na ushahidi rahisi kwamba haiko ya jumla ni kwamba kama ingekuwa hivyo, ingekuwa ni kufuta (naskh) hukumu ya aya, kwa kuwa aya ingekuwa ya jumla na hadithi nayo ingekuwa ya jumla, hivyo ingekuwa ni kufuta aya. Pia hadithi hiyo ni hadithi ya Ahad (ya msimulizi mmoja), kwa hiyo haina uthibitisho wa kuhakikisha, wakati aya ni ya kuhakikishwa. Hadithi haiwezi kuifuta Qur'an hata kama ingekuwa Mutawatir (yenye mlolongo mwingi wa wasimulizi unaoithibitisha kwa uhakika). Hii ni kwa sababu Qur'an imethibitishwa kwa uhakika kwa maneno na maana, nasi tunamwabudu Allah (SWT) kwa maneno yake na maana yake, ilhali hadithi ya Mutawatir imethibitishwa kwa uhakika kwa maana yake tu, si kwa maneno yake, na hatumwabudu Allah (SWT) kwa maneno yake; hivyo haiwezi kuifuta Qur'an. Ikiwa hali ni hii kwa hadithi ya Mutawatir, je, vipi kuhusu hadithi ya Ahad? Basi kwa msingi huu, matumizi ya hadithi hii kuthibitisha ruhusa ya kukusanya mali ikiwa Zakat imelipwa juu yake yamethibitika kuwa batili, kwa sababu haiwezekani hadithi kuifuta Qur'an.

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.

Wale wanaoruhusu kuweka akiba ya dhahabu na fedha ikiwa Zakat imeshatolewa juu yake, wanadai kwamba dalili ya ruhusa hiyo ni kwamba aya inayokataza kuweka akiba imefutwa na aya zilizofanya Zakat kuwa wajibu, na kwamba aya hizo zimeifuta aya ya kukataza kuweka akiba kwa kuwajibisha Sadaqah, yaani Zakat, juu yake. Jibu la hili ni kwamba Zakat ilifanywa kuwa wajibu kwa Waislamu katika mwaka wa pili baada ya Hijra, ilhali aya ya kukataza kuweka akiba ilishushwa katika mwaka wa tisa baada ya Hijra, na kile kilichoshushwa mapema hakiwezi kufuta kile kilichoshushwa baadaye. Zaidi ya hayo, ni lazima kuwepo na dalili inayoonyesha kwamba aya hii ni nasikh (inayofuta) kwa aya ile nyingine ili iwe nasakh (kufutwa), na kama hakuna dalili yoyote inayoonyesha kufutwa huko, basi haizingatiwi kuwa ni kufutwa. Nasakh ni kuondoa na kubatilisha hukumu inayotokana na maandishi ya awali kwa maandishi ya baadaye, na kufutwa kwa hukumu ya awali kwa maandishi ya baadaye kunategemea maandishi ya baadaye kutaja wazi kwamba ni kufuta hukumu ya awali, kama vile kauli yake:

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 « .

. » نهََيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ فَزُورُوهَا « .

“(Hapo awali) nilikukataza kuzuru makaburi, lakini sasa yazuruni.” (imepokewa na Muslim kutoka kwa Buraydah) Na kauli Yake (SWT): “Enyi mlioamini, mnapotaka kufanya mashauriano ya faragha na Mtume ﷺ, tangulizeni sadaka kabla ya mashauriano yenu. Hilo ni bora kwenu na safi zaidi. Lakini msipopata [njia ya kufanya hivyo], basi hakika Allah (SWT) ni Mwingi wa Msamaha, Mwenye Rehema.” (TMQ 58:12). Aya hii inaamrisha kutoa sadaka wakati wa kuja kwa mashauriano ya faragha, ikiwa inawezekana. Kisha inakuja aya nyingine inayoifuta: “Je, mliogopa kutanguliza sadaka kabla ya mashauriano yenu? Basi mkishindwa kufanya hivyo, na Allah (SWT) akawasamehe, basi simamisheni Swala, toeni Zakah, na mtiini Allah (SWT) na Mtume Wake ﷺ.” (TMQ 58:13). Aya hii, kwa hiyo, inaondoa amri ya kutoa sadaka wakati wa kuja kwa mashauriano ya faragha. Simulizi lenyewe linaeleza wazi ndani ya matini yake kwamba ni kufuta (naskh), na aya inaeleza kwamba ni kufuta kwa dalili, kupitia kauli Yake (SWT): “Je, mliogopa kutanguliza sadaka kabla ya mashauriano yenu?” Kwa hiyo ni lazima matini itakayodaiwa kufuta matini iliyotangulia iwe na kitu kinachoonyesha kuwa ni kufuta, kwa dalili ya wazi au kwa dalili iliyofichika. Haitoshi kwa kufuta kwamba kuna mgongano dhahiri kati ya matini mbili, kwa sababu hakuna mgongano kati ya aya za Qur'an. Kuhusu wanavyuoni waliosema kwamba aya hizi zinaashiria mgongano kati yake na wakadai kuwa zimefutwa, maandishi ya aya hizo wenyewe yako wazi kwamba hakuna mgongano, na upatanisho kati ya matini hizo uko wazi, wala hakuna kitu ndani ya aya hizo kinachoashiria kufuta. Kwa hiyo ni lazima matini ya baadaye inayodaiwa kuwa kufuta kwa iliyotangulia iwe na kitu, kwa dalili ya wazi au ya kufichika, kinachothibitisha kuwa ni kufuta. Hakuna kitu chochote katika aya za Zaka kinachoonyesha, kwa karibu au kwa mbali, kwamba ni kufuta (nasikh) kwa aya kuhusu kuweka akiba (kanzi), iwe waziwazi au kwa dalili; kwa hiyo si kufuta kwake. Hata wale wanaosema kwamba mgongano kati ya maandishi ya baadaye na ya awali hufanya maandishi ya baadaye kuwa kufuta kwa ya awali, hawasemi kwamba aya za Zaka zinafuta aya kuhusu kuweka akiba, kwa sababu hakuna kinachoashiria mgongano kati ya hizo mbili, kwani aya za Zaka ni amri ya kutoa Zaka, na aya kuhusu kuweka akiba ni wito wa kutokuwepo kwa kuweka akiba. Hakuna mgongano kati ya mambo haya mawili, kwani inaweza kuwepo kutoa Zaka na kuweka akiba, na inaweza kuwepo kutokutoa Zaka na kutokuweka akiba. Hii ni sababu nyingine kwa nini hakuna kufuta hata kwa mujibu wa maoni haya, basi kufuta kunadaiwa kutoka upande gani? Kwa hiyo, Zaka iliwekwa kuwa wajibu katika mwaka wa pili baada ya Hijra, na aya kuhusu kuweka akiba ilishushwa katika mwaka wa tisa baada ya Hijra, yaani miaka saba baada ya Zaka kuwa wajibu. Aya za Zaka hazijumuishi, waziwazi wala kwa dalili, kile kinachohitajika kuonyesha kwamba ni kufuta kwa aya kuhusu kuweka akiba. Zaidi ya hayo, hakuna mgongano kati yao. Kwa hiyo, dai kwamba aya kuhusu kuweka akiba imefutwa ni dai la uongo, na hivyo linakataliwa.

Wale wanaodai kuwa inaruhusiwa kuhifadhi dhahabu na fedha ikiwa Zakat imeshatolewa juu yake wanasema kuwa ushahidi wa uhalali wake ni kile kilichopokewa katika Bukhari: "kutoka kwa Ibn Umar aliyesema kuwa Mbedui mmoja alimwuliza kuhusu aya: "Na wale wanaohifadhi dhahabu na fedha" (TMQ 9:34): Yeyote anayeihifadhi na asitoe Zakat yake, basi ole wao; hilo lilikuwa kabla ya kushushwa aya ya Zakat, na hivyo ilipoteremshwa Allah (swt) akaifanya kuwa utakaso wa mali". Haiwezi kusemwa kuwa simulizi hii kutoka kwa Ibn Umar ni ufafanuzi wa Qur'ani kwa Sunnah, wala ni kufutwa kwa Qur'ani kwa Sunnah. Badala yake, simulizi hii ni taarifa sahihi kuhusu kufutwa huko, kwa hiyo ni katika kundi la kufutwa kwa Qur'ani kwa Qur'ani, kwa kuwa kilichofuta hukumu ya Qur'ani katika jambo hili ni Qur'ani yenyewe, kwani Zakat iliwajibishwa na Qur'ani wala si Sunnah. Hivyo ni wajibu kuikubali kwa kuwa ni simulizi sahihi inayoripoti kuwa aya hiyo imefutwa na aya nyingine, na hivyo katazo la kuhifadhi limefutwa. Kwa hiyo, chochote ambacho Zakat yake imetolewa juu yake kinaweza kuhifadhiwa.

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.

Jibu hili linatazamwa kutoka pembe nne:

The answer to this is from four angles:

Kwanza: Hii ni hadithi ya Ahad inayodai kwamba aya hiyo imefutwa hukmu yake (imenasakhwa). Kwa kuwa ni Ahad, ina hali ya uhakika usio kamili (ẓannī) kama hadithi nyingine yoyote ya Ahad, wakati aya yenyewe ina uhakika kamili (qaṭʿī). Kilicho na uhakika kamili kinatangulizwa kuliko kilicho na uhakika usio kamili, hivyo aya inatangulizwa kutokana na kutokuwepo kwa chochote kinachoifuta. Kwa hiyo aya inatekelezwa kwa sababu ya kutokuwepo kwa kufutwa, kwa kuwa inatangulizwa, na dai la kufutwa linakataliwa.

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.

Pili: Kutoa habari kuhusu kufutwa (naskh) kwa aya ni kama simulizi lililopokelewa ambalo lilijumuisha hukumu inayofuta hukumu nyingine iliyokuwa katika aya ya Qur'an. Kwa hiyo, kama vile simulizi hilo haliwezi kufuta aya hata likijumuisha kile kinachoonyesha kufutwa kwake, vivyo hivyo habari kutoka kwa Ibn Umar si kufutwa kwa aya ya Qur'an kwa kauli yake tu kwamba aya hiyo imefutwa.

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.

Tatu: Ibn Umar hakuwa amesimulia kwamba aya hiyo imefutwa kama habari kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ; yaani, hakusimulia kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema kwamba aya hiyo imefutwa. Badala yake alikuwa akitoa maoni yake kwamba aya hiyo imefutwa, kwa kuwa Mbedui alipomuuliza kuhusu aya hiyo alijibu kwamba imefutwa, wala hakusimulia kwamba Mtume ﷺ alimjulisha kuwa imefutwa. Kwa hiyo ni maoni ya Ibn Umar kwamba aya hiyo ilifutwa na Zakat. Yaani, ilikuwa ni ufahamu wa Ibn Umar kwamba Zakat iliifuta aya hii, wala haikuwa simulizi kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ. Na maoni ya Ibn Umar hayahesabiwi kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah, kwa kuwa maoni ya Sahaba hayahesabiwi kuwa dalili ya Shari'ah kwa hukumu ya Shari'ah, achilia mbali kuwa ni kufutwa kwa Qur'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.

Nne: Zakat iliwajibishwa katika mwaka wa pili baada ya Hijra, na aya iliyokataza kuweka hazina ilishushwa katika mwaka wa tisa baada ya Hijra. Sasa inawezekanaje hukumu ya awali ya Zakat kufuta aya iliyoshushwa miaka saba baadaye? Kwa hiyo riwaya hii inakataliwa kwa mujibu wa maudhui yake (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).

Pembe hizi nne bila shaka zinatosha kuonyesha kwamba kutumia riwaya hii kama dalili ni batili, na kubatilisha dai kwamba aya hiyo imefutwa (naskh). Kwa hiyo riwaya hii haifai kutumika kama dalili ya kuruhusiwa kuweka akiba (kuhodhi) mali endapo zaka yake imekwisha kutolewa.

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.

Na wale wanaoruhusu kuweka akiba (kuhodhi mali) endapo Zakat itatolewa juu yake wanasema kuwa ushahidi ni kwamba Muislamu hawajibiki kifedha zaidi ya Zakat, na ushahidi wa hili ni mwingi, kama vile hadithi iliyokubaliwa ya Mtume ﷺ kwa Mwarabu wa jangwani:

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 .

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

“alikuwa akiuliza kuhusu Uislamu… hadi akasema: Na Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alimwambia kuhusu Zakat (sadaka ya lazima). Muulizaji akauliza: "Je, nina wajibu wa kutoa chochote zaidi ya hiki?" Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akasema, "Hapana, isipokuwa chochote utakachotoa kwa hiari yako mwenyewe." na alichosema Mjumbe ﷺ:

“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 « .

.» لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَ ق سِوَى الزَّكَاة « .

“Hakuna lolote linalopaswa kutolewa kwenye mali isipokuwa Zakat.” (imepokewa na Ibn Maja kutoka kwa Fatimah binti Qays), na simulizi ya Tirmidhi ambayo aliiona kuwa Hasan kutoka kwa Abu Hurayrah, kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema:

“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 « .

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

"Unapolipa Zakat, umetimiza kile kinachokulazimu." Hadithi hizi zinaonyesha kwamba hakuna kitu chochote juu ya mali ya Muislamu isipokuwa Zakat. Hivyo maneno ya Mtume 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 « .

. » لَيْسَ عَلَيْكَ « .

"Nothing else is upon you"

“Nothing else is upon you” and:

.» لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَ ق « .

.» لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَ ق « .

"hakuna chochote kinachopaswa kulipwa kwenye mali"

“there is nothing due on wealth” and:

. » فَقَدْ قَضَيْتَ مَا عَلَيْكَ « .

. » فَقَدْ قَضَيْتَ مَا عَلَيْكَ « .

"umetekeleza yale yanayokulazimu" ni maneno ya jumla, hivyo yanajumuisha kila kitu kilichowajibika kutokana na mali. Na hii, kwa hiyo, inaonyesha kuwa ni ruhusa kuweka akiba ya mali mradi tu Zakaa ya lazima aliyo nayo Muislamu imelipwa.

“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.

Jibu la hili ni kwamba katazo la kuhifadhi mali ni suala linalojitegemea mbali na Zakah, na taarifa iliyotajwa inazuia kuwajibisha haki nyingine yoyote zaidi ya Zakah, lakini hilo halizuii kuwepo kwa kanuni za ziada zinazohusiana na mali. Kuhifadhi mali ni miongoni mwa kanuni zinazohusu mali, si miongoni mwa haki za lazima zilizo juu ya mali. Kwa hiyo Allah (SWT) hakuweka haki nyingine yoyote juu ya mali inayomilikiwa na Mwislamu kwa mtazamo wa kuwa ni mali, lakini Amewawekea mali kanuni nyingine ambazo si miongoni mwa kanuni za Zakah, kama kanuni za riba katika dhahabu na fedha, zile zinazohusu kubadilishana dhahabu na fedha, na zile zinazohusu dhahabu na fedha zilizozikwa ardhini. Yote hayo ni miongoni mwa kanuni zinazohusu mali. Kanuni zinazohusu mali zilizopatikana ardhini ni miongoni mwa kanuni za kifedha kama kanuni nyingine zote, wala si miongoni mwa haki za lazima juu ya mali. Kwa msingi huo, simulizi hizi hazina uhusiano wowote na kuhifadhi mali, na kwa hiyo simulizi hizi hazionyeshi kutokuwepo kwa katazo la kuhifadhi mali endapo Zakah yake imelipwa. Kwa sababu hiyo, kutumia simulizi hizi kama ushahidi kumebatilishwa.

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.

Hili ni pamoja na kujua kwamba hadithi mbili za mwisho zimezua mjadala, kwani Al-Hafiz aliziona zote mbili kuwa dhaifu katika Al-Talkhis, na hasa hadithi kutoka kwa Ibn Maja, kwa kuwa ni dhaifu na matini yake inapingana.

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 Maja alisimulia katika Sunan yake: Ali bin Muhammad alitusimulia kutoka kwa Yahya bin Adam, kutoka kwa Sharik, kutoka kwa Abu Hamza, kutoka kwa Al-Sha'bi, kutoka kwa Fatimah bint Qays kwamba alimsikia Mtume ﷺ akisema:

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 « .

.» لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَ ق سِوَى الزَّكَاة « .

"Hakuna lolote linalostahili kutolewa kwenye mali isipokuwa Zakat."

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

Lakini Al-Tirmidhi ameipokea katika Sunan yake: Muhammad b. Ahmad Bin Muddawiya kutoka kwa Al-Aswad Bin Amir kutoka kwa Sharik kutoka kwa Abu Hamza kutoka kwa Al-Sha’bi kutoka kwa Fatimah Bint Qays, aliyesema: Niliuliza, au Mtume ﷺ aliulizwa, kuhusu Zakah, naye akasema:

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 « .

.» إِنَّ فِي الْمَالِ لَحَقًّا سِوَى الزَّكَاة « .

"Hakika katika mali kuna haki nyingine isipokuwa Zakat."

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

Sanad yake inathibitisha, na kukataa haki isipokuwa Zakat ni dhaifu. Udhaifu unatokana na Sharik, ingawa ni mwaminifu, lakini alikuwa na kumbukumbu mbaya, na kutoka kwa Abu Hamza, ambaye imekubaliwa kumchukulia kuwa dhaifu kwa sababu ya mikinzano yake na kumbukumbu mbaya. Kwa sababu hii, ameitaja riwaya mara moja kwa kuthibitisha na mara moja kwa kukataa.

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.

Hizi ndizo hoja zote za wale wanaosema kuwa kukusanya mali (kunyweka/kuhifadhi) kunaruhusiwa mradi Zakah imetolewa juu yake. Kwa maneno mengine, ni hoja zote ambazo kutoka kwazo inawezekana kupata kufanana kwa hoja inayoonyesha uhalali wa kukusanya mali ikiwa Zakah ilishatolewa juu yake. Hizi ni hoja dhaifu, na kilicho dhahiri ni juhudi ya kutafuta njia yoyote ya kuzitumia kama ushahidi. Huenda ikawezekana kusema kuwa hakuna kitu kinachohalalisha kuzitumia kama ushahidi. Ushahidi kwamba aya inayohusu kukusanya mali ilishushwa miaka saba baada ya kuwekwa wajibu wa Zakah unatosha kueleza ubatili wa kutumia hoja hizi kama ushahidi. Kwa hiyo, ni wazi kwamba aya hiyo iko wazi kwamba kukusanya mali kumekatazwa kwa ujumla (Haram), hata kama Zakah imetolewa juu yake.

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.

Jambo moja bado linabaki ambalo ni: ni nini kinachokusudiwa kwa maneno kukusanya mali (Al-Kanz) katika aya? Jibu ni kwamba kinachokusudiwa kwa kukusanya mali ni kukusanya mali juu ya mali bila haja. Kwa lugha, kukusanya mali (Al-Kanz) maana yake ni kukusanya mali juu ya mali na kuihifadhi, na mali inakusanywa, yaani hukusanywa, na hazina ni kitu chochote ambacho kimekusanywa pamoja, chini ya ardhi au juu ya ardhi. Imetajwa katika kamusi ya Al-Muheet: “Al-Kanz: mali iliyozikwa, na hukusanywa, na dhahabu na fedha na kila kitu kinachotumika kulinda mali.” Imam Abu Ja’far Al-Tabari alisema: “Al-Kanz: Kila kitu kinachokusanywa pamoja, bila kujali kama kilikuwa chini ya ardhi au juu ya ardhi,” na aliyeandika Al-‘Ain alisema: “na ilihifadhiwa.” Hii ndiyo maana ya Al-Kanz (hazina) kwa lugha, na Qur’an inafafanuliwa kwa maana ya lugha pekee, isipokuwa pale Shari’ah ilipoweka maana ya kishari’ah kwa jambo fulani, ambapo hufafanuliwa kwa maana yake ya kishari’ah. Na neno Al-Kanz halina maana ya kishari’ah iliyothibitika kulihusu, kwa hiyo lazima lifafanuliwe kwa maana yake ya lugha pekee, ambayo ni kwamba kukusanya mali juu ya mali bila haja, kwa ajili yake yenyewe, kunachukuliwa kuwa ni kukusanya kwa kulaumiwa ambako Allah (SWT) aliahidi adhabu chungu kwa anayefanya hivyo. Basi kuzika mali maana yake ni kuihifadhi bila sababu, na kuweka mali akiba, yaani kutokuwa na haja nayo, kwa kuwa mali ikiwa ni ya kutumiwa haihitaji kuzikwa wala kuwekwa akiba. Kwa hiyo, kinachokusudiwa kwa maneno kukusanya mali katika aya ni kuihifadhi bila haja ya kuitumia, na hivyo linahusu kila aina ya kuhifadhi dhahabu na fedha bila haja.

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.