Boylikni to'plab qo'yish harom, hatto undan zakot berilgan bo'lsa ham.

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

Uning dalili Alloh (SWT) ning quyidagi so'zlaridir:

Its evidence is the words of Allah (swt):

“Va oltin va kumushni yig‘ib qo‘yadigan va ularni Alloh yo‘lida sarflamaydiganlarga, ularga alamli azob xushxabarini bering” (TMQ 9:34) — bu oltin-kumushni yig‘ib qo‘yishning cheklovsiz taqiqlanganiga dalildir. Garchi bu oyat Kitob ahli haqida nozil bo‘lgan bo‘lsa-da, uning so‘zlari umumiydir va bizga ham xitob qilinadi, buni oyatning boshidan ham ko‘rish mumkin, u shunday deydi:

“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:

Ey iymon keltirganlar! Darhaqiqat, olimlar va rohiblarning ko'pchiligi odamlarning mollarini nohaq yeydilar va ularni Allohning (SWT) yo'lidan to'sadilar. Oltin va kumushni to'playdiganlar ham shunday.

“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).

Oltin va kumushni zakot to'langan-to'lanmaganidan qat'i nazar, umumiy va cheklanmagan tarzda to'plashni oyat man etganligining dalillari quyidagicha:

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:

Birinchidan: bu oyatning umumiyligi. Oyatning matni, ham uning lafzidan, ham mazmunidan, oltin va kumushdan mol-dunyo to'plashning taqiqlanishi umumiy taqiq ekanligiga dalildir. Shuning uchun zakot to'langandan keyin to'plashni ruxsat etuvchi fikr oyatning aniq dalolatli hukmidan chetga chiqishdir. Bu faqat oyat ma'nosini o'zgartiradigan yoki uni mansux qiladigan dalil bilan asoslanishi mumkin, holbuki oyatni asl ma'nosidan burib yuboradigan hech qanday sahih matn yo'q. Aniq dalolatga ega bo'lgan narsani asl ma'nosidan burib yuboradigan dalil bo'lishi ham mumkin emas. Demak, qolgan yagona ehtimol oyatni mansux qiladigan dalil bo'lishi mumkin, ammo bunday dalil yo'q. Shunday ekan, uning hukmi o'z holicha qoladi, ya'ni mol-dunyo to'plashning taqiqlanishi, hatto undan zakot berilgan bo'lsa ham; boshqacha aytganda, to'plashning cheklanmagan taqiqi.

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.

Ikkinchi: Ahmad Abu Umomadan sahih isnod bilan rivoyat qilgan, u shunday degan:

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 .

Ahl al-Suffah dan bir kishi vafot etdi va uning belbog'ida (izorida) bir dinor topildi; Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dedilar: "U kuydiriladi". Keyin yana bir kishi vafot etdi va uning ustidan ikki dinor topildi, shunda Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dedilar: "U ikki marta kuydiriladi". Bu esa oltin va kumushni to'plab qo'yish, hatto bu ikki dinor yoki bir dinor bo'lsa ham, to'plab qo'yilgan ekan, ya'ni sarflanishi kerak bo'lgan ehtiyojsiz boylikni saqlab qo'yish butunlay harom ekanini bildiradi. Ushbu ikki kishi haqida Elchi ﷺ shunday degan edilar, chunki ular sadaqa bilan kun ko'radigan kishilar edi, ammo ularda oltin bor edi; shuning uchun u zot ﷺ: "U kuydiriladi" va: "U ikki marta kuydiriladi" dedilar. Bu Allohning (subhanahu wa taala) so'zlariga ishora qiladi: "Ularning ustiga o'sha (oltin va kumush) do'zax olovida qizdirilib, peshonalari, yonlari va orqalari dog'lanadigan kun..." (TMQ 9:35). Bu esa to'plashga oid oyatlardandir; ya'ni u zot ﷺ to'plashga oid oyatlarga ishora qilgan edilar. Bu dalil to'plashning, zakot to'lanishi lozim bo'lgan miqdorga yetgan yoki yetmaganligidan, zakot to'langan yoki to'lanmaganligidan qat'i nazar, mutlaqo va har tomonlama harom ekanligini ko'rsatadi; demak, har qanday to'plash taqiqlangan. Uchinchidan: Allohning (subhanahu wa taala) "Uni Alloh yo'lida sarflamaydigan" (TMQ 9:34) degan so'zlaridagi bog'lovchi "Oltin va kumushni to'playdiganlar" (TMQ 9:34) degan so'zlarga qarshi qo'yilgan bo'lib, shu orqali oyat ikki hukmni o'z ichiga olishini bildiradi: birinchisi boylikni to'plash, ikkinchisi uni Alloh yo'lida sarflamaslik. Oyatning matni ushbu ikki masala bilan bog'liq og'ir azobdan ogohlantiradi, ya'ni oltin va kumushni to'playdiganlar hamda ularni Alloh yo'lida sarflamaydiganlarga og'ir jazo borligini e'lon qiling. Shunday qilib, ayon bo'ladiki, kim mol-dunyoni to'playdi, lekin Allah yo'lida sarflamaydi, u ham tahdid ostiga tushadi; xuddi shunday, kim Allah yo'lida sarflaydi, lekin mol-dunyoni to'plasa, u ham tahdid ostiga tushadi. Al-Qurtubiy aytdi: "Kim to'plamasa-yu, Allah yo'lida sarflashdan tiysa, u ham xuddi shunday bo'lishi kerak". Oyatdagi "Allah yo'lida" iborasining maqsadi jihoddir, chunki u sarflash bilan birga zikr etilgan. "Allah yo'lida" so'zlari sarflash bilan bog'langanda, ularning ma'nosi jihod bo'ladi, to'g'ri, agar bu ma'nodan boshqa tomonga yo'naltiruvchi dalil topilmasa. Shunga ko'ra, "va uni sarflamaydilar" degan so'zlar, agar ular mol-dunyoni to'plab, undan Allah yo'lida sarf qilsalar, jazodan xoli bo'ladilar, degan dalil bo'la olmaydi, chunki oyatning ma'nosi bunday emas. Oyatning ma'nosi: kim to'plasa, unga og'ir azob bor, deb xabar bering, va kim Allah yo'lida sarflamasa, unga og'ir azob bor, deb xabar bering. Bu yerdagi bog'lovchi izohlovchi emas, balki farqlovchi bog'lovchidir. Shuning uchun mol-dunyoni to'plashning man etilishi cheklanmagan bo'lib, undan bir qismi Allah yo'lida sarflangan yoki sarflanmaganidan qat'i nazar, qo'llanadi. Mol-dunyoni to'plashni man etish masalasi Allah yo'lida sarflamaslikni man etish masalasidan boshqa masaladir. Demak, oyat zakot to'langan bo'lsa ham, mol-dunyoning bir qismi Allah yo'lida sarflangan bo'lsa ham, uni to'plashni man etishini aniq ko'rish mumkin.

To'rtinchi: Imom Buxoriy Zayd ibn Vahbdan rivoyat qilib aytadi: «Men Ar-Rabatda Abu Zarrning yonidan o'tdim va undan so'radim: Sizni bu joyga nima olib keldi? U javob berdi: Biz Ash-Shomda edik, u yerda men Muoviya bilan bir masala yuzasidan tortishib qoldim».

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:

“Va oltin va kumushni yig‘adigan va ularni Allohning yo‘lida sarflamaydiganlar” (TMQ 9:34). Shunda Muoviya: “Bu oyat Kitob ahli haqida nozil bo‘lgan”, dedi. Men esa: “U ham ular haqida, ham biz haqimizda nozil bo‘lgan”, dedim, va bizning oramizdagi masala shu edi. Shunda u Uthmonga men haqimda shikoyat yozdi, Uthmon esa menga Madinaga kelishimni buyurdi. Men u yerga bordim, odamlar menga xuddi meni umrida ko‘rmagandek to‘planishdi. Buni Uthmonga aytdim, u esa: “Xohlasang, yaqinroqda turishing mumkin”, dedi. Aynan shu sabab meni bu joyga olib keldi. Agar bir habashiy menga amir bo‘lsa, men unga quloq solib, itoat qilardim. Demak, Abu Zarr bilan Muoviya o‘rtasidagi ixtilof oyat qaysi kishilar haqida nozil bo‘lgani borasida bo‘lgan, uning ma’nosi borasida emas. Agar Muoviya yoki Uthmon (roziyallohu anhu) zakot berilsa, mol xazina (to‘plangan boylik) hisoblanmasligini bildiruvchi sahih rivoyatga ega bo‘lganida, Muoviya uni Abu Zarrga qarshi ishlatgan bo‘lardi va Abu Zarr jim qilingan bo‘lardi, yoki Uthmon (roziyallohu anhu) uni jim qilish uchun ishlatgan bo‘lardi. Bu shuni ko‘rsatadiki, oyatning umumiyligi va cheklanmagan xarakteri Muoviya bilan Abu Zarr o‘rtasida, hamda Muoviya bilan Uthmon (roziyallohu anhu) o‘rtasida ixtilofga sabab bo‘lmagan va ular buni rad etuvchi rivoyatga ega bo‘lganligi tasdiqlanmagan.

“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.

Shunga ko'ra, oyat barcha oltin va kumushni qamrab olishi aniq, ular jihodda ishlatilganmi yoki ularga zakot to'langanmi, zakot vojib bo'ladigan miqdorga yetganmi yoki yetmaganmi – buning farqi yo'q. Shuning uchun har qanday xazina yig'ish (to'plab qo'yish) harom hisoblanadi.

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).

Zakot to'langan taqdirda ganjga ruxsat beruvchilarning hech qanday ishonchli dalili yo'q, ularning barcha dalillari esa zaifligi va sanad zanjirlarining kuchsizligi sababli e'tiborga olinmaydi. Imom Bухорий "Zakot berilgan bo'lsa, bu ganj emas" degan bob sarlavhasini qo'ygan bo'lsa-da, bu sarlavhaga mos keladigan bitta ham rivoyatni keltirmagan, chunki uning nazarida bittasi ham sahih emas edi. Zakot to'langandan keyin ganj saqlashning ruxsat etilishiga dalil qilib keltirilgan barcha rivoyatlar bittasidan tashqari sahih emas. Bu istisno – Umm Salamah roziyallohu anhodan rivoyat qilingan, ziynat buyumlari haqidagi rivoyatdir. Bu masala bo'yicha keltirilgan boshqa barcha rivoyatlar esa yolg'on deb hisoblanadi va ham sanad, ham matn jihatidan tanqid qilingan.

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.

Umm Salamah rivoyatiga nisbatan, ular oltin va kumushni to‘plab qo‘yish zakot berilgan taqdirda joiz ekanligini isbotlash uchun dalil sifatida keltiradilar. Bu rivoyat quyidagicha: Abu Dovud Sobit ibn Ajlon, u Ato orqali Umm Salamadan naql qilgan, u esa shunday degan:

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 .

“Men taqinchoqlardan oltin taqardim. So‘radim: «Ey Allah Rasuli ﷺ, bu kanzmi?» U zot javob berdilar: «Nisob miqdoriga yetgan, zakoti berilgan narsa kanz emas»”. Hadisda ishlatilgan so‘z — al-Awdhah bo‘lib, bu bir turdagi zeb-ziynat buyumidir. Al-Muhit lug‘atida shunday deyilgan: «al-Vadeh… bu kumush taqinchoq bo‘lib, ko‘plik shakli awdhah». Bu rivoyat zaif, chunki Sabit ibn Ajlan bir o‘zi rivoyat qilgan hadislarda munozaralidir. ad-Dhahabiy uning tarjimai holida Sabit haqida shunday degan: «Sabitdan rad etilgan rivoyatlar qatoriga ‘Attob orqali ‘Ato’dan, u Ummu Salamadan qilgan rivoyati kiradi». Shunga qaramay, agar u sahih bo‘lsa ham, ayollar taqadigan zeb-ziynat buyumlari bilan cheklanadi va qiymati nisobga yetib, unga zakot berilgan bo‘lsa, u jamg‘arma hisoblanmaydi. Bu taqinchoqlarga zakot berish dalili va umumiy jamg‘arma taqiqidan istisno qilinganligining dalilidir. Bu rivoyat ikki jihatdan, zakoti berilgan narsani jamg‘arishning mubohligiga dalil sifatida ishlatishga yaroqsiz:

“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:

Birinchidan: Bu rivoyat savolga javob sifatida kelgan, va savolga javob bo'lgan yoki muayyan mavzuga oid kelgan har qanday matn zarurat bo'yicha o'sha savol nimaga oid bo'lgan bo'lsa, o'shanga va o'sha muayyan mavzuga cheklanadi. Chunki so'zlar savolga, ya'ni muayyan mavzuga bog'liq bo'ladi, shuning uchun ular o'sha savol va mavzu bilan chegaralanadi va undan tashqariga tatbiq etilmaydi. Shunga ko'ra, rivoyat zeb-ziynat haqida bo'lib, agar zeb-ziynatga zakot berilsa, uni yig'ib qo'yish ruxsat etiladi, boshqa narsalar esa ruxsat etilmaydi. Shariat qoidasi: "Hukm so'zlarning umumiyligiga qaraladi, sababning xoslanishiga emas", deb aytib, so'zlar umumiy bo'lgani uchun ular faqat zeb-ziynatga emas, balki boshqa narsalarga ham taalluqli, deb dalil keltirish mumkin emas. Bunday dalil keltirib bo'lmaydi, chunki bu qoida sababga taalluqlidir, savolga berilgan javobga yoki muayyan mavzuga emas. Bu qoida to'g'ri va uning matni ham faqat sababga taalluqli ekanini ko'rsatadi, chunki unda "sababning xoslanishiga emas" deyilgan; sabab bilan muayyan mavzu o'rtasida, sabab bilan savolga berilgan javob o'rtasida farq bor.

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.

Sabab shuki quyidagicha: biror masala yuz beradi, so'ngra u bilan bog'liq shar'iy hukm nozil bo'ladi. Masalan, quyidagi oyatning nozil bo'lishi shunday: "Alloh va Uning Rasuli bir ishga hukm qilganda, mo'min erkak va mo'min ayol uchun o'z ishlarida ixtiyor bo'lishi joiz emas..." (TMQ 33:36). Bu oyatning nozil bo'lish sababi shu bo'lganki, Rasulullah ﷺ o'z jiyani Zaynabni xizmatkori Zayd ga nikohlab berdilar, so'ngra uning akasi 'Abdulloh (SWT) ibn Jahsh rad etdi va shunda Alloh (SWT) bu oyatni nozil qildi. Demak, bu nozil bo'lish sababi bo'lib, unga "hukm so'zlarning umumiyligiga qaraladi, sababning xususiyligiga emas" qoidasi tatbiq etiladi. Yana bir misol: meros haqidagi oyatning nozil bo'lish sababi. Rasulullah ﷺ kasal bo'lib yotgan Jobir ibn 'Abdulloh (SWT) huzuriga borganlarida, u Allohning Rasuli ﷺ dan: "Mening molim bilan qanday muomala qilay? Molim bilan nima qilay?" deb so'radi, Rasulullah ﷺ esa meros oyati nozil bo'lguncha javob bermadilar (Jobirdan rivoyat qilingan muttafaq alayh hadis). Demak, bu nozil bo'lish sababi edi.

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.

Shu tariqa bilan, sabab-i nuzulning barcha turlari shu xildadir va zikr etilgan hukm ham aynan shunga tatbiq etiladi. Bu hukm savolga javob va muayyan masala haqidagi hukmdan farq qiladi. Chunki muayyan masala - bu gap ketayotgan, hukm kelganda izlanayotgan masaladir, va hukm o'z-o'zidan paydo bo'lmagan, shuning uchun u o'sha masala bilan chegaralanadi. Xuddi shuningdek, Rasululloh ﷺ ning so'zlari ham muayyan savolga bog'liq bo'lishi mumkin, shuning uchun savolga javob sifatida aytilgan so'zlar o'sha savol bilan chegaralanadi.

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.

Masalan, Al-Buxoriy Abu Hurayradan rivoyat qilgan narsani, u aytdi:

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 .

“Biz Payg'ambar (ﷺ) huzurida o'tirganimizda, bir kishi kelib dedi: “Ey Allohning Payg'ambari (ﷺ)! Men halok bo'ldim.” Allohning Payg'ambari (ﷺ) undan nima bo'lganini so'radi. U javob berdi: “Men ro'za tutgan holimda xotinim bilan jinsiy aloqada bo'ldim.” Allohning Payg'ambari (ﷺ) undan so'radi: “Qul ozod qilishga qodirmisan?” U inkor javobini berdi. Allohning Payg'ambari (ﷺ) so'radi: “Ketma-ket ikki oy ro'za tuta olasanmi?” U inkor javobini berdi. Payg'ambar (ﷺ) so'radi: “Oltmish miskinni to'ydira olasanmi?” U inkor javobini berdi. Payg'ambar (ﷺ) jim qoldi, biz shu holatda turganimizda, Payg'ambar (ﷺ) huzuriga xurmo to'la katta bir savat keltirildi. U so'radi: “Savol bergan kishi qayerda?” U javob berdi: “Men (shu yerdaman).” Payg'ambar (ﷺ) unga dedi: “Buni (xurmo savatini) olib, sadaqa qil.” Ol kishi dedi: “Mendan ko'ra kambag'alroqqa beraymi? Allohga qasam, uning (ya'ni Madinaning) ikki tog'i orasida mendan kambag'al oila yo'q.” Payg'ambar (ﷺ) oldingi tishlari ko'ringuncha kulib yubordi va dedi: “Buni o'z oilangga yedir.”

“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”.

Pайғамбарнинг (с.а.в.) жавоби сўралган саволга хос бўлади, шу сабабли "қулни озод қил" деган сўзлар бедуин саволи билан боғлиқдир. Яна бир мисол: қуритилганда хурмони сотиш жоиз бўладими, деб сўралганида, Пайғамбар ﷺ шундай сўради:

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 « .

"Do fresh dates shrink when they 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. Thus, the answer of the Messenger ﷺ is specific to what he was asked, that is, 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 great difference between the two. Accordingly, general wording that comes as a reply to a question is not a cause for the rule; it is only an explanation of the matter in question. If general wording came to legislate a new rule for an issue that had occurred, then the legislation of the rule would be general, and the occurrence of the issue would be the cause for legislating the rule. So the wide difference between a 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 that question, since the words of the Messenger ﷺ are connected to it.

“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.

Payg'ambar (s.a.v.)dan dengiz suvi haqida so'ralgani va u zotning javobi haqida: Wait—I must follow the rules: write ﷺ after every mention of the Prophet, not "s.a.v." and not "(pbuh)". Also "(saw)" should be replaced by ﷺ. Corrected: Payg'ambar ﷺdan dengiz suvi haqida so'ralgani va u zotning javobi haqida:

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

» هُوَ الطَّهُورُ مَاؤُهُ الْحِلُّ مَيْتَتُه « . “Uning suvi poklovchidir, o‘lik hayvonlari esa halaldir” (at-Termiziy Abu Hurayradan rivoyat qilgan; Abu Iso bu rivoyat hasan sahih ekanini aytgan). Bu hadis so‘ralgan narsaga, ya’ni dengiz suviga ham xos bo‘lib, Payg‘ambar ﷺ so‘ragan kishiga so‘ralganidan ortiq narsani bayon qildilar. Shunday bo‘lsa-da, bu Payg‘ambar ﷺning so‘ralgan narsaga, ya’ni dengiz suviga xos javobi bo‘lib qoladi va shu bilan chegaralanadi. Xuddi shunday, u zotdan “budoa”, ya’ni quduq suvi haqida so‘ralganda, u zot ﷺ aytdilar:

. » 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 « .

“suv pokizadir” (At-Termiziy Abu Sa’id al-Xudriydan rivoyat qilgan va u “hasan” deb aytgan, Ahmad esa uni sahih deb tasdiqlagan). Bu hadis ham savolga aloqador bo‘lib, Payg‘ambar ﷺ quduq suvi haqidagi savolga javob bergan, ammo uning javori so‘ralgan narsadan kengroq bo‘lgan. Shunga qaramay, bu javob savolga bog‘liq Rasulullah ﷺ ning javobi bo‘lib qolaveradi. Unga dengiz suvi bilan taharat olish haqida savol berilgan edi, javob esa taharat, g‘usl (katta hadatdan poklanish) va boshqa narsalarni o‘z ichiga oluvchi umumiy hukm bo‘ldi. “Al-Imam Sharh Al-Ilmam” kitobida shunday yozilgan: “Nega ular: ‘Undan taharat olsak bo‘ladimi?’ deganlarida, u zot ﷺ ‘ha’ deb javob bermadi? Biz aytamiz: chunki shunda javob faqat zaruriyat holatiga cheklangan bo‘lar edi, holbuki bu unday emas. Shuningdek, javobni ‘ha’ deb cheklash shuni anglatardiki, undan faqat taharat olish mumkin, boshqa najosat va iflosliklarni esa u bilan poklab bo‘lmaydi”.

“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”.

Shuning uchun Payg'ambar (ﷺ)ning dengiz suvi va quduq suvi haqidagi javobi so'ralgan narsa bilan chegaralanadi, hamma narsaga umumlashtirilmaydi. Biroq u savol beruvchiga so'ralganidan ko'proq javob berdi, lekin baribir savolining mavzusi doirasida. Bu yerda gap javobning savolga muvofiqligi haqida emas, shunday deyish mumkin emaski, Payg'ambar (ﷺ)ning javobi savol beruvchining savolidan umumiyroq edi. Balki gap shundaki, javob savolning mavzusi bilan chegaralangan, boshqa mavzuga o'tmasdan, shu doirada qolgan. Javobning savolga muvofiqligi haqida gap bormaydi. Shavkoniy "Nayl al-Avtor" kitobida shunday degan: "Hadisning foydalaridan biri shuki, savolga javobda so'ralganidan ortiq narsa berish joizdir, bu foydani (to'g'ridan-to'g'ri javobdan) kengaytirish uchun, va uni cheklash shart emas". Imom Buxoriy bu masala bo'yicha alohida bob yozgan: "Bob: kim savol beruvchiga so'ralganidan ko'proq javob beradi". U Ibn Umarning quyidagi rivoyatini keltirgan: ...

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 .

Bir kishi Payg'ambardan so'radi: "Muhrim (umra yoki hajj qilmoqchi bo'lgan musulmon) qanday kiyim kiyishi kerak?" U javob berdi: "U ko'ylak, salla, shim, bosh yopinchig'i yoki za'faron yoki Vars (xushbo'y moy turlari) bilan xushbo'ylangan kiyim kiymasligi kerak. Agar uning mahsi bo'lmasa, qalin mato yoki charmdan tikilgan paypoqlardan foydalanishi mumkin, lekin paypoqlar to'pig'i ochiq qolishi uchun kalta qilib kesilishi kerak." Bu shuni ko'rsatadiki, go'yo u tanlov vaziyati haqida so'ralgan va shunga javob bergan, so'ngra safar ko'pincha shunday vaziyatga olib kelishi mumkinligi sababli, zarurat vaziyati haqida qo'shimcha ma'lumot bergan, bu esa savolga zid emas. Bu barcha narsa javob savol bilan chegaralanganligini ko'rsatadi; uning so'zlariga e'tibor bering: "savolga zid emas". Javob so'ralgan narsaga mos keladimi yoki so'ralganidan ko'proq bo'ladimi, bu farq qilmaydi, javob baribir savolga xosdir. Shu sababli Umm Salama savoli zeb-ziynat haqida edi, shuning uchun Rasulullohning (saw) javobi ham zeb-ziynatga xosdir va undan tashqariga, ya'ni boshqa narsalarga tatbiq etilmaydi, chunki bu savolga javob bo'lib, hukm sabab bo'lgan voqea emas. Demak, zakot to'langan bo'lsa ham uni yig'ib qo'yishning ruxsat etilganligini isbotlash uchun bu rivoyatni dalil sifatida ishlatish noto'g'ri ekanligi ko'rsatilgan, chunki rivoyat zeb-ziynatga xosdir.

“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.

Ikkinchi sabab: Zakot oyati har qanday jamg‘armaga umumiy, Umm Salama rivoyati esa zeb-ziynatga xos. Shunday ekan, rivoyat oyatning umumiyligini tashkil qilgan holda tahsis (aniqlashtirish) bo‘ladi. Demak, man etilgan jamg‘arma zeb-ziynatdan boshqa narsalarni jamg‘arishdir, zeb-ziynatni jamg‘arish esa, uning zakoti berilsa, harom emas. Rivoyatning har turdagi jamg‘armaga umumiy bo‘lishi hech bir jihatdan mumkin emas. Uning umumiy emasligining eng oddiy dalili shuki, agar u umumiy bo‘lganida, bu oyatning mansux bo‘lishi bo‘lardi, chunki oyat ham, rivoyat ham umumiy bo‘lib, shunda rivoyat oyatni bekor qilgan bo‘lardi. Rivoyat esa ahad (yakka) rivoyat bo‘lib, u qat’iy emas, oyat esa qat’iydir. Rivoyatlar, hatto mutavotir (ko‘p silsilali, shu sababli ma’nosi qat’iy isbotlangan) bo‘lsa ham, Qur’onni mansux qila olmaydi. Chunki Qur’on so‘zi va ma’nosi bilan qat’iy naql qilingan, biz Allohni uning so‘zi va ma’nosi bilan ibodat qilamiz. Mutavotir rivoyat esa faqat ma’nosi bilan qat’iy naql qilingan, uning so‘zi bilan Allohga ibodat qilmaymiz. Shuning uchun u Qur’onni mansux qila olmaydi. Agar mutavotir rivoyatning holi shu bo‘lsa, yakka rivoyatning holi qanday bo‘lishi kerak? Demak, zakot berilsa jamg‘arishning halolligini isbotlash uchun bu rivoyatni dalil qilish batil ekanligi, Qur’onning rivoyat bilan mansux bo‘lishi joiz emasligi sababli, isbotlangan.

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.

Oltin va kumushni zakot berilgan taqdirda ham to'plab qo'yishni ruxsat deb hisoblaydiganlar, uning ruxsat berilganligiga dalil sifatida, to'plashni taqiqlovchi oyat zakotni farz qilgan oyatlar bilan mansux bo'lgan, o'sha oyatlar esa sadaqani, ya'ni zakotni unga farz qilish orqali to'plash oyatini mansux qilgan, deb da'vo qiladilar. Bunga javob shuki, zakot musulmonlarga Hijratdan keyingi ikkinchi yilda farz qilingan, to'plash haqidagi oyat esa Hijratdan keyingi to'qqizinchi yilda nozil bo'lgan, va oldinroq nozil bo'lgan narsa keyinroq nozil bo'lgan narsani mansux qilmaydi. Bundan tashqari, bir oyatning boshqa oyatni mansux qilishi uchun, bu oyat o'sha boshqa oyat uchun mansux ekanligini ko'rsatadigan dalil bo'lishi shart; agar bunday mansuxlikni ko'rsatadigan dalil topilmasa, u mansuxlik hisoblanmaydi. Naskh — oldingi matndan kelib chiqqan hukmni keyingi matn orqali bekor qilish va olib tashlashdir; oldingi hukmning keyingi matn orqali bekor qilinishi esa, keyingi matnning o'sha oldingi hukm uchun mansux ekanligini zikr qilishiga bog'liqdir, masalan, uning so'zi kabi:

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 « .

“(Avvalroq) Men sizlarni qabrlarni ziyorat qilishdan qaytargan edim, endi esa ularni ziyorat qilinglar”, (Muslim Buraydadan rivoyat qilgan). Va Uning (SWT) so‘zlari: “Ey iymon keltirganlar! Payg‘ambar ﷺ bilan shaxsiy maslahatlashmoqchi bo‘lsangiz, maslahatingizdan oldin sadaqa bering. Bu siz uchun yaxshiroq va pokroqdir. Agar (sadaqa berishga imkoningiz) topilmasa, bilingki, Allah (SWT) mag‘firat qiluvchi va rahmlidir”. (TMQ 58:12). Bu oyat, imkon bo‘lsa, maslahat uchun kelganda sadaqa berishni buyuradi. Keyin esa boshqa oyat kelib, uni mansux qiladi: “Maslahatingizdan oldin sadaqalar berishdan qo‘rqdingizmi? Shunday ekan, agar bunday qilmasangiz va Allah (SWT) sizni kechirgan bo‘lsa, unda namozni barpo eting, zakot bering, Allah (SWT) va Uning Payg‘ambariga ﷺ itoat eting”. (TMQ 58:13). Shunday qilib, bu oyat shaxsiy maslahat uchun kelganda sadaqa berish hukmini bekor qiladi. Rivoyat o‘z matnida bu mansux ekanligini aniq bayon qiladi, oyat esa Uning (SWT) “Maslahatingizdan oldin sadaqalar berishdan qo‘rqdingizmi?” degan so‘zlari orqali bu mansux ekanligini ishora bilan tushuntiradi. Shuning uchun, mansux bo‘lishi uchun keyingi matnda, ochiq yoki ishora yo‘li bilan, uning oldingi matndan mansux ekanini isbotlovchi biror narsa bo‘lishi shart. Ikki matn o‘rtasida zohiriy ziddiyat bo‘lishi mansux bo‘lishi uchun yetarli emas, chunki Qur’on oyatlari o‘rtasida hech qanday ziddiyat yo‘q. Ba’zi olimlarning, bu oyatlar o‘rtasida ziddiyat bor, shuning uchun ular mansux deb da’vo qilishlariga kelsak, o‘sha oyatlarning o‘zi ziddiyat yo‘qligini aniq ko‘rsatadi va ular o‘rtasidagi muvofiqlik ravshan, oyatlarda esa mansuxlikka dalolat qiluvchi hech narsa yo‘q. Demak, oldingi matnning mansuxi deb da’vo qilinayotgan keyingi matnda, ochiq yoki ishora bilan, uning mansux ekanini isbotlovchi biror narsa bo‘lishi shart. Zakot oyatlarida, na aniq ravishda, na ishora yo'li bilan, yaqindan yoki uzoqdan, xazina to'plash haqidagi oyatning mansuxi ekanini bildiradigan hech narsa yo'q, shuning uchun ular unga nisbatan mansux emas. Hatto oldingi va keyingi matn o'rtasidagi ziddiyat keyingi matnni oldingisiga nisbatan mansux qiladi, deganlar ham zakot oyatlari xazina to'plash haqidagi oyatni mansux qiladi, demaydilar, chunki ikkalasi o'rtasida ziddiyatga ishora qiladigan hech narsa yo'q. Zakot oyatlari zakot to'lashga chaqiruv, xazina to'plash haqidagi oyat esa xazina to'plamaslikka chaqiruv bo'lgani uchun ular o'rtasida ziddiyat yo'q. Zakot to'lash va xazina to'plash birga bo'lishi mumkin, zakot to'lamaslik va xazina to'plamaslik ham birga bo'lishi mumkin. Bu fikr bo'yicha ham mansux bo'lmaslikning yana bir sababi bor, shunday ekan, bu mansuxlik qaysi jihatdan da'vo qilinmoqda? Shuningdek, zakot hijratdan keyingi ikkinchi yilda farz qilingan, xazina to'plash haqidagi oyat esa hijratdan keyingi to'qqizinchi yilda nozil bo'lgan, ya'ni zakot farz qilinganidan yetti yil o'tib. Zakot oyatlari esa xazina to'plash haqidagi oyatni mansux qilishga zarur bo'lgan narsani, aniq yoki ishora yo'li bilan, o'z ichiga olmaydi, bundan tashqari ular o'rtasida hech qanday ziddiyat yo'q. Demak, xazina to'plash haqidagi oyat mansux bo'ldi, degan da'vo asossiz va shuning uchun rad etiladi.

Ba'zilar, zakot to'langan bo'lsa, oltin va kumushni to'plab qo'yish joiz, deydilar. Ularning bu fikriga dalil sifatida Buxoriyda kelgan quyidagi rivoyatni keltiradilar: Ibn Umar roziyallohu anhu aytadi: bir a'robiy undan: "Oltin va kumushni to'playdiganlar" (TMQ 9:34) oyati haqida so'radi. U aytdi: "Kim uni to'plab, zakotini bermasa, ularga vay bo'lsin. Bu zakot oyati nozil bo'lishidan oldin edi. Zakot oyati nozil bo'lgach, Alloh (subhanahu va taolo) uni mol-dunyo uchun poklovchi qildi". Bu Ibn Umar rivoyatini Qur'onni Sunnat orqali tafsirlash yoki Sunnat orqali Qur'onning hukmini bekor qilish, deb bo'lmaydi. Aksincha, bu rivoyat o'sha bekor qilish (naskh) haqida ishonchli xabardir. Shu sababli bu Qur'onning Qur'on orqali bekor qilinishi turiga kiradi, chunki bu holatda hukmni bekor qilgan narsa Qur'onning o'zi bo'lgan: zakot Sunnat bilan emas, balki Qur'on bilan farz qilingan. Shuning uchun ishonchli rivoyatni, ya'ni oyat boshqa oyat bilan bekor qilingani haqidagi xabarni qabul qilish vojibdir va to'plashni taqiqlash hukmi bekor bo'lgan. Demak, zakoti berilgan har qanday mol-mulkni to'plab qo'yish mumkin, degan xulosaga keladilar.

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.

Bu savolga to'rt tomondan javob beriladi:

The answer to this is from four angles:

Birinchidan: Bu ahad rivoyat bo'lib, u oyatning mansux bo'lganini da'vo qilmoqda. Ahad rivoyat esa, boshqa har qanday ahad rivoyat kabi, zanniy (gumonli) hisoblanadi. Oyat esa qat'iy (aniq) hisoblanadi. Qat'iy narsa zanniy narsadan ustun qo'yiladi. Demak, oyat ustun turadi, chunki unga nasx qiluvchi hech narsa yo'q. Shu sababli oyat amalda qo'llanadi, nasx bo'lmagani uchun va u ustun bo'lgani uchun, nasx haqidagi da'vo esa rad etiladi.

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.

Ikkinchi: Bir oyatning mansux (bekor qilingan) ekanligini xabar qilish xuddi shunday hadisga o'xshaydiki, unda Qur'ondagi bir oyatda bo'lgan hukmni bekor qiladigan hukm mavjud bo'ladi. Qanday qilib hadis oyatni bekor qila olmasa, hatto u oyatning bekor qilinganiga dalolat qiluvchi narsani o'z ichiga olsa ham, xuddi shunday, Ibn Umardan kelgan xabar uning "bekor qilingan", deb aytganligi bilan Qur'on oyatini bekor qilmaydi.

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.

Uchinchidan: Ibn Umar payg'ambar (saw) dan olingan xabar sifatida oyatning mansux bo'lganini aytmagan; boshqacha aytganda, u payg'ambar (saw) oyat mansux bo'lgan deganini rivoyat qilmagan. Balki u oyatning mansux bo'lganiga o'z fikrini bildirgan, chunki bedavi undan oyat haqida so'raganida, u uning mansux bo'lganini javob bergan va payg'ambar (saw) unga bu mansux bo'lganini xabar qilgani haqida hech narsa aytmagan. Demak, Ibn Umarning fikri shuki, oyatni zakot mansux qilgan. Boshqacha aytganda, zakot bu oyatni mansux qilgan deb tushunish Ibn Umarning o'z tushunchasi bo'lgan, bu payg'ambar (saw) dan rivoyat emas edi. Sahobiyning fikri esa shariat dalili hisoblanmaydi, chunki sahobiyning fikri shariat hukmi uchun shariat dalili hisoblanmaydi, Qur'on hukmini mansux qilish uchun esa hatto aytib o'tirishning hojati ham yo'q.

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.

To'rtinchidan: Zakot hijratdan keyingi ikkinchi yilda farz qilingan, al-kanzni (mol-mulkni yig'ib qo'yishni) man etuvchi oyat esa hijratdan keyingi to'qqizinchi yilda nozil bo'lgan. Unday bo'lsa, qanday qilib oldingi zakot hukmi yetti yil keyin nozil bo'lgan oyatni mansux qila oladi? Shuning uchun bu rivoyat matni jihatidan (dirayatan) rad etiladi.

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).

Ushbu to'rt jihatning o'zi bu rivoyatni dalil sifatida ishlatish noto'g'ri ekanini ko'rsatishga va oyatning mansux bo'lganligi haqidagi da'voni rad etishga, shuning uchun bu rivoyat zakot berilgan mol-mulkni yig'ib qo'yish joiz ekaniga dalil bo'la olmasligiga, shubhasiz, yetarli.

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.

Zakot to'langan taqdirda mol-mulkni to'plashga ruxsat beradigan kishilar, dalil sifatida Muslimning zakotdan tashqari moliyaviy jihatdan javobgar emasligini aytadilar. Bunga ko'plab dalillar bor, jumladan Bedu arablarga aytilgan Rasulullah ﷺ ning ittifoq qilingan (muttafaqun alayh) rivoyati:

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 .

…u Islom haqida so'rayotgan edi, to shu paytgacha u dedi: Va Allohning Elchisi ﷺ unga zakot (majburiy sadaqa) haqida xabar berdi. So'rovchi so'radi: "Bundan tashqari menga biror narsa to'lash majburiymi?" Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dedi: "Yo'q, lekin o'z ixtiyoringiz bilan ixtiyoriy ravishda nima to'lasangiz, (u sizning xohishingizga bog'liq)." Va Elchi ﷺ nima degan bo'lsa:

“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 « .

“Mol-mulkda zakotdan boshqa hech narsa vojib emas”, — deb rivoyat qilgan Ibn Moja Fotima bint Qaysdan; va Termiziy Abu Hurayradan rivoyat qilgan hasan hadisni ham e’tiborga olganki, Payg‘ambar ﷺ shunday degan:

“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 « .

"Zakotni to'laganingizda, sizdan talab qilinganini ado etgan bo'lasiz", — degan so'zlar. Bu rivoyatlar musulmonning molida zakotdan boshqa hech narsa vojib emasligini bildiradi, shuning uchun Payg'ambarimiz ﷺ ning so'zlari:

“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 « .

"mol-mulkka hech qanday zakot yoki boshqa majburiyat yo'q" va:

“there is nothing due on wealth” and:

. » فَقَدْ قَضَيْتَ مَا عَلَيْكَ « .

. » فَقَدْ قَضَيْتَ مَا عَلَيْكَ « .

"sizga vojib bo'lganini ado etdingiz" degan so'zlar umumiy bo'lib, mol-mulkdan vojib bo'lgan har qanday narsani o'z ichiga oladi. Shu sababli, musulmonga vojib bo'lgan Zakot ado etilsa, mol-mulkni jamg'arishning ruxsat etilganligiga ham bu dalolat qiladi.

“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.

Javob shuki, kanz qilish (boylikni to'plab saqlash) masalasi zakot masalasidan alohida mavzudir. Keltirilgan dalil boylik ustidagi zakotdan boshqa har qanday haqqning vojib qilinishiga to'sqinlik qiladi, lekin boylikka oid boshqa hukmlarning mavjudligiga to'sqinlik qilmaydi. Kanz qilish boylikka oid hukmlar qatoriga kiradi, boylik ustidagi vojib haqqlar qatoriga emas. Shuning uchun Alloh taolo mo'min musulmonning boylagi mol-mulkiga, uning mol ekanligi jihatidan, zakotdan boshqa haqqni vojib qilmagan. Lekin Alloh boylik uchun zakot hukmlaridan tashqari boshqa hukmlarni ham belgilagan, masalan, oltin va kumushdagi riboviy (foiz) hukmlari, oltin va kumushni almashtirish bilan bog'liq hukmlar va yerdan topilgan oltin-kumush bilan bog'liq hukmlar. Bularning barchasi boylikka oid hukmlardir. Yer ostidan topilgan boylik hukmlari ham moliyaviy hukmlar jumlasidan bo'lib, boylik ustidagi vojib haqqlardan emas. Shunga ko'ra, bu rivoyatlarning kanz qilish masalasi bilan aloqasi yo'q. Shuningdek, bu rivoyatlar zakoti berilgan taqdirda ham boylikni kanz qilishning harom ekanini inkor etmaydi. Demak, ularni dalil sifatida keltirish o'z kuchini yo'qotadi.

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.

Ushbu ikki so‘nggi rivoyat bo‘yicha ixtilof bor, chunki Al-Hofiz ularning ikkalasini ham "At-Talxis" kitobida zaif deb hisoblagan, ayniqsa Ibn Moja rivoyatini, chunki u zaif sanad bilan va ziddiyatli matn bilan kelgan.

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 Moja o'zining "Sunan" kitobida rivoyat qiladi: Ali ibn Muhammad bizga Yahyo ibn Odamdan, u Sharikdan, u Abu Hamzadan, u Ash-Sha'biydan, u Fotima bint Qaysdan rivoyat qildi, u Rasululloh ﷺ aytganlarini eshitgan.

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 « .

"Mol-mulkdan zakotdan boshqa hech narsa vojib emas."

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

Ammo at-Termiziy o‘z "Sunan" kitobida buni rivoyat qilgan: Muhammad ibn Ahmad Ibn Muddaviya Al-Aswad ibn Omirdan, u Sharikdan, u Abu Hamzadan, u Ash-Sha’biydan, u Fotima bint Qaysdan rivoyat qiladi, u shunday degan: "Men so‘radim yoki Payg‘ambar ﷺ dan zakot haqida so‘ralganda, u shunday javob berdi:

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 « .

"Zakotdan tashqari ham molda haqqi (majburiyat) bor, albatta."

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

Sanadi tasdiqlaydi, va "zakotdan boshqa haqqni rad etish" qismi zaif. Zaiflik Shark tufaylidir: u ishonchli kishi, lekin xotirasi yomon edi. Shuningdek Abu Hamza tufaylidir: uning ziddiyatli rivoyatlari va yomon xotirasi sababli uni zaif deb hisoblash kelishilgan. Shu sababli bu rivoyatni u bir marta tasdiqlab, bir marta rad etib zikr qilgan.

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.

Bu, zakot to'langan taqdirda ham to'plab qo'yish (kanz) ruxsat etilgan, deyuvchilarning barcha dalillaridir, ya'ni zakot to'langan taqdirda to'plab qo'yishning ruxsat etilganligini ko'rsatuvchi dalilga o'xshash biror narsa topish mumkin bo'lgan barcha dalillar. Ular esa zaif dalillardir, va ko'rinib turgan narsa shuki, ularni dalil sifatida ishlatish yo'lini topishga urinishdir. Ularni dalil sifatida ishlatishni oqlaydigan hech narsa yo'q, deb aytish mumkin. To'plab qo'yish haqidagi oyat zakot farz qilinganidan yetti yil keyin nozil bo'lgani dalil sifatida ishlatilishining yaroqsizligini tushuntirish uchun kifoya qiladi. Shunday ekan, oyat aniq ko'rsatadiki, zakot to'langan taqdirda ham to'plab qo'yish umuman harom qilingan.

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.

Yana bir masala qoldi, u ham: oyatdagi "al-kanz" (xazina to'plash, yig'ish) so'zlari nimani anglatadi? Javob shuki, xazina to'plashdan maqsad — ehtiyojsiz holda boylikni boylik ustiga to'plashdir. Lug'atda xazina to'plash boylikni boylik ustiga yig'ish va uni saqlash demakdir; boylik kanz qilinadi, ya'ni yig'iladi, va xazina yerning ustida yoki ostida bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, bir joyga to'plangan har qanday narsadir. "Al-Muhit" lug'atida shunday deyilgan: "Al-kanz: ko'milgan boylik; u xazina qilinadi, oltin va kumush hamda boylikni muhofaza qilish uchun ishlatiladigan har qanday narsa". Imom Abu Ja'far at-Tabariy aytdi: "Al-kanz: yerning ustida yoki ostida bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, bir joyga yig'ilgan har bir narsa". "Al-'Ayn" kitobining muallifi esa: "va u saqlangan bo'ladi", degan. Bu til jihatidan al-kanzning ma'nosidir. Qur'on esa faqat lug'aviy ma'no bilan izohlanadi, agar shariat biror narsaga shar'iy ma'no bog'lamagan bo'lsa; shar'iy ma'no bog'langan bo'lsa, u shar'iy ma'no bilan izohlanadi. "Al-kanz" so'zi uchun esa sahih shar'iy ma'no kelmagan, shuning uchun u faqat lug'aviy ma'no bilan izohlanishi kerak. Ya'ni ehtiyojsiz holda, o'z uchun, boylikni boylik ustiga yig'ish — Alloh subhanahu va taolo bunday qiluvchiga og'riqli azob va'da qilgan, qoralangan xazina to'plash deb hisoblanadi. Shunday qilib, boylikni ko'mish degani uni ehtiyojsiz ravishda saqlab qo'yish, ya'ni uni yig'ib qo'yish demakdir, chunki boylik sarflash uchun bo'lsa, uni ko'mish yoki yig'ib qo'yish kerak emas. Demak, oyatdagi "boylikni xazina qilish" iborasining maqsadi — uni sarflanadigan maqsadsiz saqlashdir, va shu sababli bu har qanday turdagi, ehtiyojsiz holda oltin va kumushni yig'ishga taalluqlidir.

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.