“有一个来自Ahl Al-Suffah的人去世了，人们在他的腰布中发现了一枚第纳尔；安拉的使者（愿主福安之）说：‘他将被火焚烧。’后来又有一人去世，身上发现了两枚第纳尔，安拉的使者（愿主福安之）说：‘他将被火焚烧两次。’’这说明，囤积金银是完全被禁止的，即便只是两枚甚至一枚第纳尔，只要是在囤积，也就是在积存财富而没有花费它的需要。使者（愿主福安之）之所以对这两人这样说，是因为他们属于那些靠施舍度日的人，身上却仍有黄金，所以他说：‘他将被火焚烧’，以及：‘他将被火焚烧两次’。这也是在暗指安拉（SWT）的话：‘在那日，这些财宝要在火狱中烧红，用来烙他们的额头、两胁和背脊。’（TMQ 9:35），这段经文属于关于囤积的经文；换言之，他是在暗指关于囤积的经文。这是对囤积完全、全面禁止的证据，无论所囤积的数额是否达到应缴天课的标准，无论是否已缴纳天课；因此，任何囤积都是被禁止的。第三：安拉（SWT）的话：‘不将它们花费在安拉的道路上。’（TMQ 9:34）中的连接词，与安拉（SWT）的话：‘那些囤积金银的人。’（TMQ 9:34）相对照，由此表明该经文包含两条规定：第一是囤积财富，第二是不将财富花费在安拉的道路上。经文的文本表明，对于这两件事都有严厉惩罚的警告，也就是说，对于囤积金银和不将其花费在安拉道路上的人，要向他们宣告严厉的惩罚。 因此可以清楚地看出,不囤积财富但不为主的道路而施舍的人,同样在警告之列;而为主的道路施舍却又囤积财富的人,也同样在警告之列。古尔图比说:“不囤积但扣留不为主的道路施舍的人,也应当与之相同。”经文中“为主的道路”一语的含义是圣战,因为它与施舍并列提及。当“为主的道路”与施舍连在一起时,其意义即为圣战,除非有某种迹象将其引离这一含义。因此,“且不施舍”这句话不能作为证据,说明如果他们囤积财富,并从中为主的道路施舍,他们就不在惩罚之列。因为经文的意思并非是“凡囤积财富而不为主的道路施舍的人,你们要向他们宣告严厉的惩罚”,并以此连接词作解释性的连接,从而推出:若所囤积的财富已用于主的道路,囤积者便不受惩罚。恰恰相反,经文的意思是:凡囤积的人,你们要向他们宣告惩罚;凡不为主的道路施舍的人,你们也要向他们宣告惩罚。这里的连接词是表示差异的连接词,而非解释性的连接词。因此,禁止囤积是无条件的,无论其中是否有一部分已用于主的道路。囤积的禁令与不为主的道路施舍的禁令,是两个不同的问题。由此可以清楚地看出,这节经文禁止囤积财富,即使已对其缴纳了天课,即使其中已有一部分用于主的道路。
“A man from the Ahl Al-Suffah died, and a Dinar was found in his garments (waist-wrap); the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “he will be burnt”, then another died and two Dinars were found on him, and the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “he will be burnt twice””, and this means that it is completely forbidden to hoard gold and silver, even if it was only two or even just one Dinar, as long as it is being hoarded, in other words, the storage of wealth without a need that it would be spent on. And the Messenger (saw) said that in respect to these two men because they were from those who used to live on charity and yet they had gold on them, and so he said: “he will be burnt” and: “he will be burnt twice”, alluding to His (swt) words: “The Day when it will be heated in the fire of Hell and seared therewith will be their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs.” (TMQ 9:35), which is part of the verses of hoarding; in other words, he was alluding to the verses regarding hoarding. This is an evidence for the complete, comprehensive forbiddance of hoarding irrespective of whether it amounted to the value which Zakah should be paid upon or not, and irrespective of whether Zakah was paid upon it or not; so any hoarding is prohibited. Third: The conjunction in His (swt) words: “And spend it not in the way of Allah (swt).” (TMQ 9:34) contrasts with His (swt) words: “And those who hoard gold and silver.” (TMQ 9:34) and thus indicating accordingly that the verse covers two rules: the first being the hoarding of wealth and the second the lack of spending in the path of Allah (swt). The text of the verse indicates the threat of a severe punishment connected to these two issues - in other words, for those who hoard gold and silver and those who do not spend them in the path of Allah (swt), then announce to them a severe punishment. Therefore, it becomes clear that he who does not hoard, but does not spend in the path of Allah (swt), is encompassed by the threat, and likewise the one who spends in the path of Allah (swt) and yet he hoards wealth is also encompassed by the threat. Al-Qurtubi said: “Whoever does not hoard, and withholds spending in the path of Allah (swt), must also be the same”. The intention of the words: “in the way of Allah (swt)” in the verse is Jihad, since it is mentioned alongside spending. When the words: “in the way of Allah (swt)” are connected to spending, then their meaning is Jihad, unless there is an indication found which takes it away from that meaning. Accordingly, the words: “and spend it not” are not suitable as an evidence that if they hoard wealth and spend from it in the path of Allah (swt) they are not included in the punishment, since the meaning of the verse is not, and whoever hoards wealth in that they do not spend it in the path of Allah (swt) then announce to them a severe punishment, with the conjunction being explanatory and so, therefore, if the hoarded wealth was spent in the path of Allah (swt), the hoarder would not be punished. Rather, the meaning of the verse is that whoever hoards then announce to them a punishment and whoever does not spend in the path of Allah (swt) then announce to them a punishment. The conjunction is a conjunction of dissimilarity and not explanatory. Therefore, the forbiddance of hoarding is unrestricted, irrespective of whether some of it was spent in the path of Allah (swt) or not, and the issue of the forbiddance of hoarding is a different issue than the forbiddance of not spending in the path of Allah (swt). Accordingly, it is clearly seen that the verse forbids hoarding wealth even if Zakah had been paid upon it and even if some had been spent in the path of Allah (swt).