On the Origins & Development of the Meaning of Zakat Suliman Bashear

8/7/2019 On the Origins & Development of the Meaning of Zakat Suliman Bashear

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/on-the-origins-development-of-the-meaning-of-zakat-suliman-bashear 1/31

BRILLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4057202 .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Arabica.

http://www.jstor.org



ON THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE

MEANING OF ZAKAT IN EARLY ISLAM

BY

SULIMAN BASHEAR

Introduction

HE INFORMATION provided by Muslim sources on zakdtlsadaqa

(poor-tax/rate, almsgiving), which eventually emerged as one

of the "pillars" (arkdn) of classical Islam, has been outlined by

modern scholars. While the voluntary vs. obligatory nature of

zakdtlsadaqaand their interchangeable occurrence in these sources

were considered, it has also been noted that, in the time of the

Prophet, these were still vague regulations and did not represent

taxes demanded by religion. Widely circulated reports concerning

the refusal of certain Bedouin tribes to pay zakdt after the Prophet's

death as they considered their agreements with him cancelled by

that, as well as 'Umar's inclination to agree with this, and the fact

that only Abuf Bakr made it a permanent institution, were brought

in support of such an assessment.'

The basic difference between sadaqa,which was primarily applied

to the supererogatory, and the obligatory nature of zakdt, has also

been noted.2 And the eventual emergence of alms as an obligatory

duty in Islam led one scholar, H. Grimme, to the suggestion that

Muhammad "should be treated as a social rather than a religious

reformer. "3 R. Bell, in turn, gave weight to the fact that the order

to pay zakdtoccurs in "Meccan passages" of the Qur'an and noted

that such occurrence comes "only in the sense of alms and volun-

tary giving to the poor, as much for the purification of the giver's

1 J. Schacht, s.v. "Zakat" in Encyclopaediaof Islam, first edition, IV, 1202-4;H.A.R. Gibb andJ. Kramers, eds., ShorterEncyclopaediaof

Islam,Leiden 1974, pp.654-5, and the sources cited therein.2 E. Lane, Arabic-EnglishLexicon,repr. Beirut 1980, IV, p. 1668.3 H. Grimme, Mohammed,Miunster1892, quoted by Tor Andrae, Mohammed,

theMan and His Faith, London 1936, pp. 101-2; and R. Bell, TheOriginof Islamin its ChristianEnvironment,London 1926, p. 79.

Arabica,tome XL, 1993



ZAKAT 85

soul as for relief of the needy."4 Concerningthe institution of zakdt,

which is nowhere regulated, J. Schacht cautiously pointed to the

fact that Muslim sourcesplace it in Medina between the years2 and9 A. H., while R. Bell sounds more confidentwhen saying that "its

beginning belongs to the first year or two in Medina and was

motivated by the circumstances of the poorer Muhajiriun and

necessities of the state. "5

Scholars also disagreed concerning the similarity between and

possible origins of zakdt and sadaqain parallel institutions and

cognate words from the vocabulary of other religions in the area.

R. Bell held that "the word zakdt is Syriac and therefore Chris-

tian", butJ. Schacht and othersexpressedthe view that it was bor-rowed fromJewish usage of Hebrew-Aramaiczdktt.6 And the same

was held concerningsadaqaas a transliterationof the Hebrew seddkawhich originally meant "honesty". We are also told that, as

applied by the Pharisees for what they considered the chief duty of

the pious Israelites, namely almsgiving, the proper sense of this

word, which is voluntary or spontaneous "charity", was still

retained at the time of the coming of Islam and elsewhere.7 One

scholar, H.P. Smith, held that Muslim tazkiyain the sense of

purificationof propertycorresponds to a similar notion expressedin Deuteronomy14:28, though, later, zakdtemerged as a regular tax

of the Muslim State.8C.C. Torrey, in turn, expressed the view thatzakdtand sadaqaare loan words from the North Semitic languages,

corresponding in particular to Aramaic zakuitand sidaktaandHebrew sidaka, respectively. The Aramaic words, he held,originallymeant "purity" and were used by both Jews and Chris-

tians in the sense of "virtuous conduct". To this he added the view

that "the latter term (sidakta)was widely used in Aramaic speech

to mean alms."9

4 R. Bell, Introductionto the Qur'dn,Edinburgh 1953, p. 166. Cf. also M.Hudgson, The Ventureof Islam, Chicago 1974, p. 181.

5 J. Schacht, p. 1203; R. Bell, ibid.6 J. Schacht, p. 1202; H.A.R. Gibb andJ.H. Kramers, p. 654. Compare, how-

ever, with A. Jeffery, ForeignVocabularyof theQur'dn,Baroda 1938, p. 153, whereit is stated that neither of the Aramaic or Syriaccognates seem to have ever meantalms, though this meaning could easily be derived from them.

7 H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, ibid.8 H.P. Smith, TheBibleandIslam, N.Y. 1897, p. 313.9 C.C. Torrey, TheJewishFoundationof Islam, N.Y. 1933, p. 141.



86 SULIMAN BASHEAR

For all the investigation of the origins and development of zakdt

in early Islam, the subject is far from being satisfactorily concluded.

In an attempt to contribute to it, we propose to open with a closer

examination of the material provided by Arabic lexical sources as

well as a comparative enquiry into cognates from other Semitic

languages. This, we hope, will help to elucidate some of the parallel

aspects of this institution which existed in other religious cultures

and in early Islam. In order to follow the possible continuity of such

legacy and the development of the Muslim institution of zakdt, a

closer examination of the Qur'anic material on it will also be con-

ducted. Special attention will be paid to Qur'an IX: 103 as well as

other scriptural instances which are believed by Muslim scholars to

have established the duty of zakdt in Islam. Besides the traditional

material on its nature, the circumstances of levying it and other

related issues, we shall also examine the Halakhic aspects of the

above-mentioned positions associated with the names of Abuf Bakr,

'Umar I and other early Muslim figures. However, one thing must

be made clear at the outset. The present study is an enquiry into

the initial religious meaning of the concept of zakdt and not into the

views concerning the varying amounts and portions out of the dif-

ferent properties from which it was levied.

Lexical and ScripturalIndications to a Pre-Islamic Legacy

Arabic lexical and other sources point to several meanings given

to abstract nouns derived from the root ZKA/I/W. Zaka' was inter-

preted by al-Khalil b. Ahmad as growth and increase, especially if

applied in reference to planting (zarc);a notion reiterated by several

later sources.10 Ibn Durayd adds to this the meaning of a tax (itcP)

levied by God upon the crops (ma yukhrijuhu l-lahu tacdld mina 1-

thamar)."IAs for zakat, one of the meanings given by al-Khalil and

Azhari is saldh in the sense of validity.'2 From Jawhari one can

10 Al-Khalil b. Ahmad (d. 175/791), Kitabal-cAyn,Baghdad 1982, V, 394; Ibn

Durayd (d. 321/933, KitabJamharatal-Lugha,Haydarabad 1345/1926, III, 17;Azhari (d. 370/980), Tahdhfbal-Lugha,Cairo 1964, X, 319-20, quoting Ibn al-Anbdrd;Ibn Faris (d. 395/1004), Mu5jamMaqdytsal-Lugha,Cairo 1368/1948, III,17; Jawhari, Tajal-Lughawa-Sihdhal-cArabiyya,Cairo 1282/1865, II, 482. Cf. alsoIbn Qutayba (d. 276/889), G/aribal-Hadfth,Beiruth 1988, I, 25; Sarakhsi, al-Mabsiz, Cairo 1324/1906, II, 149.

l Ibn Durayd, ibid.12 Al-Khalil, V, 394; Azhari, X, 319.



ZAKAT 87

gauge the difficulty of philologically relating zakdt to the second

stem, zakkd. For, the abstract noun which he gives for paying zakdt

is tazkiyawich he notes can also denote praise. One notes also that

he adds the meaning of charity associated with the fifth stem,

tazakkdwhich he equates with tasaddaqa.13

The other meaning given by al-Khalil, his contemporary, al-

Layth b. Sa'd (d. 175/791) and later lexicographers for zakdt is

"purification" (tath&r).From the usual wording of such an inter-

pretation, however, one feels that zakdt in this sense is applied

exclusively to whatever is levied on property (wa-l-zakdtuzakdtu1-

mdli wa-huwa tathiruhulwa-yuqdlu:al-taharatuzakdtul-mdli).'4 Azhari,

Ibn Faris and Jawhari try to harmonize the main two meanings by

saying that purifying the property causes it to grow and increase.

One also notes that behind such morally inclined reasoning by Ibn

Faris and Jawhari stands Qur-an IX: 103 which orders the Prophet

to levy a sadaqaon properties for the aim of purification using the

phrase tutahhiruhumltutahhirhumwa-tuzakkdhimbiha.'5 And Sarakhsi

in particular clearly reflects the main current in Qur'anic exegesis

when he says that zakdt is called as such because, accordingto Qur'dn

IX 103, it purifies its payerfrom sins (li-annaha tujahhirusahibaha Cani

l-dtham).16

Against this background, it will be interesting to examine the

meanings given to cognates from some Semitic languages. A quickglance at words derived from the roots ZKA/H/I/W in all these

languages as well as in Sumerian, shows that they bear basically

two meanings: purity and exemption from the payment of taxes.

The word zakutu is originally Sumerian and reappears in Akkadian

texts in the senses of cancelling taxes due to the king and right being

granted by the king and relating to setting people free. Note that

in Akkadian in particular, this word occurs also in contexts of free-

ing people from acts and payments due to the gods."7

13 Jawhari, II, 489.14

Al-Khalil, V, 394; Azhari, X, 319 quoting Layth; Ibn Faris, III, 17.15 Ibn Faris, ibid.; Jawhari, II, 489.16 Sarakhsi, II, 149. More on this verse, below.17 W. Winefeld, Trial andJustice in Israel and Among the Peoples,Jerusalem 1985,

pp. 82-3, 167 (in Hebrew); K.H. Gordon, Before There Was the Bible, Tel-Aviv1966, p. 36. For the comparative search into this as well as the other Semiticlanguages throughout this section I was helped by 0. Ifrati to whom I owe a debtof gratitude.



88 SULIMAN BASHEAR

From the root ZKH in Assyrian is derived the word zakuin the

senses of being pure, clean and shining as well as free from com-

mitments. Uzakkimeans to declare one free from commitments,

while zakutaoccurs in texts of the same language in the sense of:

being free from payment of tithes due to the gods, an agreement,

a judgement, a declarationof the independence of cities and regula-

tions and laws relating to land properties.18 And Uzakkiin Ugaritic

texts indicatesfreeinga town from works due to the king.19Phoeni-

cian words derived from the roots ZK and ZKA are used in the

sense of "pure", while ZKI of the same language occursalso in the

senses of being not guilty and free of charge.20

The root ZKH in Gecez denotes purity,2"while in Tigre andGurage the word zakatmeans both a tax paid to the local chief and

a present.22In Amharic, however, words derived from the same

root denote food either begged for by poor studentsor given by rich

people to the poor and the priests.2" And a similar meaning, of

charity for the poor, as well as a tax, is derived from the Sabaean

root ZKW.24

The senses of being innocent, declared not guilty in court and

pure, are often born also by Syriac and Imperial Aramaic words

derived from the roots ZK/H/I/W. Besides, such words in Syriac

are used also in the senses of to be victorious, overcome, occupy

and rule by force.25And the same can be noted about Hebrew

18 W. Muss-Arnolt, Assyrisch-Englisch-DeutschesHandwdrterbuch,Berlin 1986, I,277-9.

19 C.H. Gordon, UgariticManual,Part 3: ComprehensiveGlossary,Roma 1955, p.261.

20 Cf. Z.S. Harris, A Grammarof thePhoenicianLanguage,Philadelphia 1936, p.99; Ch.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dicti.onnairedesInscriptionsSernitiquesde l'ouest,Leiden 1965, p. 76.

21 W. Leslau, ConciseDictionaryof Gecez,Wiesbaden 1987, p. 637.22 W. Leslau, EtymologicalDictionaryof Gurage,Wiesbaden 1979, III, 705; idem,

NorthEthiopicandAmharicCognatesin Tigre, Napoli 1982, p. 85.23 W. Leslau, ConciseAmharicDictionary,Wiesbaden 1976, p. 183.24 A.F.L. Beeston, M.A. Ghul, W.W. Muller and J. Ryckmans, Dictionnaire

Sabeen(AnglaisFrancaisArabe),Beyrut 1982, p. 170; B.J. Copeland, Dictionaryof Old

SouthArabicSabaeanDialect,Chicago 1982, p. 159.25 Cf. J. Payne Smith, ed., A CompendiousSyriacDictionary,FoundedUpon the

ThesaurusSyriacusof R. PayneSmith,Oxford 1903, p. 115; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein,A Syriac-EnglishGlossary,Based on Brockelmann'sSyriacChrestomathy,Wiesbaden1970, p. 21; A.J. Darham, Darham'sDictionaryof theStabilizedandEnrichedAssyrianLanguageand English, Chicago 1943, p. 145; L.B. Costaz, DictionnaireSyriaque-Francais,Syriac-EnglishDictionary,Beyrouth 1963, pp. 87-8; Ch.-F. Jean and J.Hoftijzer, op. cit., p. 76.



ZAKAT 89

cognates occurringin the Old Testament as well as Talmudic and

Midrashic Hebrew.26Note also that the adjective zakay(from the

root ZKH) occurs in the Old Testament, Micah 11/6 in the sense

of one who is proved innocent when chargedwith cheating, while

in Psalms 76/13, 119/9, Proverbs20/9, Isaiah 16/1 and Daniel 23/6,

the senses conveyed are: being clean, morally clean and not

guilty.27And once in the Talmud, the same root is applied in the

senses both of payment of a monetaryfine and an obligatory poor

tax.28

Against the background of such a rich pre-Islamic legacy, it is

interestingto note that a few of the Qur'anic verses which order to

perform prayer and give zakdt actually address the Children of

Israel. Such are the cases of Qur'an II:43, 83 and 110. And the fact

that these verses explicitly ordertheJews to pay zakdtseems not to

have constituted any serious problem for Muslim scholars. In his

commentary on Qur'an II:110, the philologist Abui cUbayda (d.

210/825) for example, says only that the phrase "wa-dtul-zakdta"

means give it (ayaCtli)29.Qurtubi (d. 667/1268) does not comment

upon the fact that Qur'an II:43 addresses the Jews and only notes

that while most scholarsunderstood it as meaning the usual zakat

ordainedupon Muslims, Malik b. Anas (d. 179/795) was reported

as holding that ratherthe charitablealms given after breaking the

fast (sadaqatal-fitr)was the one meant.30 From another source welearn that support to this latter view was reported also by Abiu

Ijayyan al-Taymi (Yahya b. Sacid b. Hayyan, Kafan d. 145/762)

from al-Harith al-CUkli (b. Yazid al-Taymi, death date

unknown).31

Two differentviews were associatedwith the name of Ibn cAbbas

concerning the phrase "wa- dtuil-zakdt"of Qur'an II:43. One,

through Muc'wiya b. Salih (Uims, d. 172/788) cAll b. Abi Talha

(al-Jazari who lived in Hims, d. 143/760), says that zakathere

26 A. Even-Shoshan, The New Dictionary,Jerusalem 1969, II, 670-72 (in

Hebrew); Y. Steinberg, TheBible Dictionary,HebrewandAramaic,Tel-Aviv 1960,p. 205.27 S. Radi, TheNewDictionaryof theBible,Jerusalem 1989, I, 132 (in Hebrew);

Y. Steinberg, The BibleDictionary,Hebrewand Aramaic,Tel-Aviv 1960, p. 205.28 The BabylonianTalmud,Qiddushin27/(a).29 Abu cUbayda, Majdzal-Qur'dn,Cairo 1988, I, 51.30 Qurtubi, Tafsfr, Cairo n.d., I, 292.31 Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327/938), Tafsir, Riyad 1408/1987, I, 150.



90 SULIMAN BASHEAR

means obedienceand loyaltyto God (IdCatul-ldhiwa-l-ikhl1&ulahu).32

However, throughAbuiRawq ('Atiyya b. al-HIirith,Kiifan, death

date unknown) Dahhak (b. Muzahim, Khurasini, d. 102-6/720-4)

we learn that Ibn cAbbas held that the zakdtmeant here is the one

which God ordainedthe Children of Israel to give out of their pro-

perties. And one variant of this tradition explains that such an

order was a sunna different than the sunna of Muhammad, namely

that the formerwas a sacrifice which the Children of Israelused to

make and that a fire used to descend fromheaven and carryit away

as a sign that it was accepted by God.33

Qatada (d. 117-8/735-6) and Hasan al-Basr1i(d. 110/728) are

reportedto have held that zakdtin both Qur'an II:43 and 83 is an

ordinance exactly like the prayer (saldt)with which it was coupled

(faridatdniwajibatdn).34But this fact, which Mujahid (d. 102-3/720-

1) too was reportedly well aware of, I does not seem to have con-

stituted a problem for the exegetes or even most of the later com-

mentators. From both Muqatil b. Hayyan (d. 150/767) and

Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 150/767) we learn that at least Qur'an

11:43 containsan order to theJews/var., ahl al-kitabto praywith the

followers of Muhammad and to pay the latter zakdton their proper-

ties (amarahumanyu'ti 1-zakdtayadfaci'nahdild n-nabiyyi(y)).36Tabari,

who expresses a similar understanding of this verse, adds that,

hence, the Jews were orderedto submit to God and His Messenger,i.e. Muhammad, as the Muslims did (wa-anyakhdaci7li-l-ldhiwa-li-

rasuilihikamdkhadaczi).3Zamakhshariand Nasaff say only that they

were ordered to perform the same prayer and pay the same zakdt

of the Muslims (yacnisaldtal-muslimfnawa-zakdtahum).38

The comments made by other late scholars are equally

interesting. Ibn cArabi (Abu Bakr, d. 543/1148) raises the

possibility that the Jews were ordered by Qur'an I:43 to pay the

same zakdt because it is known in all religions (wa-yuhtamaluan

32 Tabari (d. 310/922), Tafsfr,Cairo 1954, II, 297-8; Ibn Abi Hatim, ibid.Cf.also Tabarsi (d. 548/1153), MajmaCal-Baydn,Beirut 1957, I, 337.

33 Tabarl, ibid.; Tabarsi, ibid.34 Tabari, I, 572-3; Ibn Abi Hatim, I, 150, 259.35 Mujahid, Tafsfr,Beirut n.d., I, 83.36 Ibn Abi Hatim, I, 149-50; Muqatil b. Sulayman, Tafszr,Ms. Saray, Istan-

bul, III Ahmet, 74, I, 9(b), 16(a), 19(b).37 Tabari, I, 572-3. Cf. also his II, 506 concerning Qur'an II:110.38 Zamakhshari (d. 528/1133), al-Kashshdf,Cairo 1354/1935, I, 66/ Nasafi (d.

701/1301), Mad&irikal-TanzFl,Beirut n.d., I, 45.



ZAKAT 91

yakiiniu umiruibi-z-zakdti li-annahd ma'liimatunJt kulli dinin mina 1-

adydn).39R5zi (d. 606/1209) and Baydlaw1(d. 685/1286) say that

addressingthe Jews by this verse proves that Muslim religiouslaws

apply to unbelievers too (wa-dhdlikayadullu caldanna l-kuffaramukha/-

tabiiza bi-furiucish-shard)i).40 Qur'an II:83, however, means for

Baydawi that the prayer and zakdtmentioned there are the ones

ordainedupon theJews but only accordingto their religion (yuridu

mdfurida calayhimft millatihim), i.e. not the Muslim duties.41

Qur'an IX:33 warns the believers against most of the religiousleaders of Judaism and Christianity (al-ahbdrwa-l-ruhbdn)who

unjustly eat people's properties", etc.42To this, Qur'an IX: 34

adds a warning of severe tortureagainst those who accumulategoldand silver (wa-l-ladhTnayaknizi7nadh-dhahabawa-l-fiddata ...) and do

not spend it in the way of God. From the exegetical material onthese two verses one feels that the very reading of the conjunctive

waw" between them (in wa-l-ladhfna)was itself a matter of inter-pretationas both verseswere presentedas referringto thosewho donot pay zakdt from among the adherents of Judaism and Chris-

tianity as wellas the Muslims. Moreover, some of the traditionscited in reference to Qur'an IX:34 in particular, point to theinvolvement of cUmar I on behalf of those who were rebukedby itfrom among the followers of Muhammad, a notion which con-

stitutes part of such role which, as we shall see below, wasstronglyassociated with the name of cUmar.

To begin with, connecting this verse with the order to pay zakdtwas based on severalpropheticaltraditionswhich interpret kanz(lit.

treasure) as any property whose zakat is not payed (kullu md lamtu'addazakituhufahuwa kanz). Such traditionswere transmittedfromthe Companions Ibn cUmar (throughboth Nafic, d. 117-20/735-7,and cAtiyya, poss. al-cAwfi)and Ibn cAbbas (through cAli b. Abi

Talha) as well as reportedfrom cIkrima(d. 104-7/722-5), Shacbi(d.103-10/721-8), Hasan al-BasrI and Suddli (d. 127/744).43 Also

39 Ibn CArabi,Ahkimal-Qur'dn,Beirut 1972, I, 20-1.40 Razi, Mafidthal-Ghayb,Cairo 1308/1890, I, 325; Baycdwi-,Anwdral-Tanzil,Lipsiae, 1845, I, 56-7.

41 Bayd.awi,I, 70.42 For the translation, see A.J. Arberry, TheKoranInterpreted,London and N.Y.

1955, I, 211.43 Tabari, XIV, 219, 225; Tabarsi, X, 53: Baghawl (d. 516/1122), Sharhal-

Sunna,Beirut 1983, V, 478; Suyiiti (d. 911/1505), al-Durral-Manthur,Beirut 1983,



92 SULIMAN BASHEAR

Muqatil held the same view." And from one source we learn that

the early fourth century al-JubbaiP(d. 303/915) said that on this

matter there was a consensus (yima).45As for the questionwho were those referredto by this verse, two

main currentscan be discerned. One says thatit warnedagainstthe

Jewish ahbdrand Christian ruhbdn/var.,ahl-al-kitibwho did not payzakat,and the second held that it included the Muslims too because

of the conjunctive waw, as noted above. From a unique tradition,

one can gauge that this reading with waw aimed in the first place

at presenting the whole verse as referringto both ahl al-kitiband

Muslims. According to this tradition, cAlba' b. Ahmar, who was

a "reader" (qiri') of the Qur'an, active in early to mid-second cen-

tury Basra (exact death date unknown), said that when cUthman

b. cAffan ordered the canonical Codex to be written down people

wanted to omit the waw, but Ubayy objected and threatened to

fight for it and thus, it was retained.46

In spite of such "interpretative reading", to use J.

Wansbrough's terminology,47both cAbbas(througha familyline of

cAtiyya al-cAwfi) and Dahhak are reported to have held that this

verse referred to both ahl al-kitaband Muslims.48Suddi, in turn, is

said to have held that the partof the verse which begins with "wa-l-

ladh/na"refersto the Muslims (lit., people of the qibla).49And cAta'

is said to have transmitteda view similarto this latter one from IbncAbbas.50

A clear expression of the two conflicting currents over the

applicabilityof this verse comes in the form of a reported debatebetween Mucawiya and Abu Dharr, a debate which is said to have

determined the personal future of the latter. According to one tradi-tion, when askedby Zayd b. Wahb about the reason for which hewas banished to al-Rabadha, Abu Dharr explained that it was his

IV, 176-8. Cf. also Nasafi, II, 124. For a unique view reportedfrom al-Baqir (d.114-8/732-6), see al-Qummi (d. 326/939), Tafsir,Najaf 1386/1966, I, 289.

44 Muqitil, I, 153(a).45 Tabarsi, X, 53.

46 Suyfii, Durr, IV, 178-9, quoting Ibn al-Dirris.47 For the view that Qur'anic "reading" is actually a matter of exegesis, see

his Qur'dnicStudies,Oxford 1977, p. 226.48 Tabari, XIV, 225; WaIhidi(d. 468/1075), Asbalbal-Nuzzll,Beirutn.d., p. 184;

Suyuti, Durr, Iv, 178, quoting Abuial-Shaykh (d. 369/979).49 Tabari, XIV, 219; Suyiati,Durr, IV, 179, quoting Ibn Abi Hatim; Wihidi,

p. 183; Qurtubi, IV, 2963.50 Wahidi, p. 184.



ZAKAT 93

conflict with Mu'awiya over the applicability of Qur'an IX:34. We

specificallylearn that when AbiuDharr recited this verse, with its

warning against those who accumulated gold and silver from

among the Muslims (an implied reference to the Syrian governor,

Muc'wiya and his aristocraticUmayyad clan), Muc'wiya defended

himself by claiming that this verse was revealed only concerning

ahl-al-kitab.However, becauseAbuiDharrpersistedin his criticism,

Muc'wiya complained to the Caliph, cUthman b. cAffan and the

latter banished the "rebelliousCompanion" to al-Rabadha.As for

the isnddof this tradition, we notice that its main reporter from

Zayd b. Wahb was Husayn b. cAbd al-Rahman (Kiifan, d.

136/753) from whom it was circulated in the late second century byWarqa' (b. Umar, Kfifan, exact death date unknown), Hushaym

b. Bashir(Wasit, d. 183/799) and Ibn Idris(cAbdAllah ? , Kulfan,

d. 192/807).51Tabarl cites a similar tradition of AbulDharr albeit without the

element of Zayd's enquiry. It was reportedin a maqti'formby Abiu

Bishr (Jacfar b. Abi Wahshiyya/b. Iyas, Wasiti, d. 123-31/740-8)

and circulated from the latter by the link: Ibn Idris Ashcath (b.

Sacid, Basran, d. ca. 150/767) and Hisham (unidentified).52From

Qurtubi we learn that the view associated with the name of

Muc'wiya was put forwardby as late as al-Asamm (Abuial-cAbbas,

d.346/957) implying

that unbelievers too arerequired to complywith the orders of Muslim sharica.ssFinally, Nasafi only says that

the verse may have referredto either ahlal-kitabor the Muslims.54

An Act of Cleansingthe Guilt

Occasionally, other verses were also presented as urging repay-

ment of zakator invokedby traditions including such urging. These

traditions were associated with the names of Ibn Masci'd, Ibn

cAbbas, Abil Hurayra, Shacbi, al-Baqir and Suddi concerning the

phrase "al-ladhinayabkhalzina"of Qurlin III:180.55 Other tradi-

51Mujahid, Tafsfr,Beirut n.d., I, 277 (where Warqa"s tradition does not stateMucawiya's name and says instead: "then, a man said ..."; Tabari, XIV, 227-8;

Qummi, I, 52 (where no isnadwas provided);Wah.id!,p. 183; Qurtubi, IV, 2963.52 Tabarl, ibid.

Qurtubi, IV, 2963.54 Nasafi,II, 124.55 Ibn Maja (d. 275/888), Sunan,Cairo 1952, I, 568-9; Nasd'i (d. 303/915),

Sunan,Cairo 1987, V, 11-2; Tabarani (d. 360/970), al-Mu5jamal-Kabfr,Baghdad



94 SULIMAN BASHEAR

tions, associated with the names of 'All and Ibn 'Umar, interpretthe word "al-ma'un"of Qur'an CVII:7 as zakct and sadaqa.56And

similar isolated traditions connect Qur'an XLI: 7 and III:144 with

urging to pay zakdtand Abu Bakr's decision to fight against those

who refused to do so, respectively.57

Shafici (d. 204/819) notes Qur'an III:180, IX:34 and IX: 103 asverses connected with ordainingthe payment of zakdt,but does notexpress any preference between them.58 From two fourth centurysources we uniquely learn that both cIrak b. Malik (Medinese, d.101-5/719-23) and cUmar II held that Qur'an IX:34 was actuallyabrogated by Qur'an IX: 103.59Indeed, this latter verse is the one

most often cited as regulating the order to pay zakdt,a fact whichjustifies a detailed examination of the exegetical and traditionalmaterial on it.

To begin with, Qur'an IX: 103 orders the Prophet to extractsadaqafrom certain people in order to purify them of their guilt,using the verbs tutahhiruhumwa-tuzakkfhimto denote such an aim.

The ones referred to by this verse are anonymously hinted at in thepreceding one, Qur'an IX: 102, as having committed bad deeds,and the whole Qur'anic complex conveys the sense of sadaqanot ascharity but rather as a fine levied in order to purify from guilt.Indeed, Razi, in his above-mentioned commentary on Qur'anII:43, puts forward this notion as an alternative meaning of zakdtby referring to Qur'an IX:103.60

The narratives often cited concerning the actual occasion onwhich this verse was revealed, differ on the names and number of

those meant by it, as well as on the circumstances in which theycommitted their sin, their repentance and related issues. The

1983, IX, 261-2; Baghawi (d. 516/1122), Sharhal-Sunna,Beirut 1983, V, 478;Tabarsi, IV, 283.

56 Cf. 'Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211/826), Tafszr,Ms. Diir al-Kutub, Cairo, Taf-sfr/242, 136(b); A. Mah.iyiri, TafsfrSufydnb. cUyayna(d. 198/813), Cairo 1983,p. 349; Majlisi (d. 1111/1699), Bihir al-Anwar,Beirut 1983, XCIII, 29; IbncAsakir, (d. 571/1175), Terikh,facs. ed., Amman 1988, IX, 693.

57

cAbdal-Razzaq, 125(b); Ibn cAsakir, III, 43; but compare with Tabari, VII,251-60, where no such connection is made.58 Shaficl, al-Umm, Beirut 1980, II, 3. Cf. also al-Shaykh al-$aduiq,Jamic al-

Akhbdr,lithog. ed. 1310/1892, p. 99.59 Ibn Abi Hatim and Abil al-Shaykh, quoted by Suyuiti,Durr,IV, 179. Com-

pare, however, with Ibn Maja, I, 569-70, where a similar notion was associatedrather with the name of Ibn cUmar.

60 Rizi, I, 325.



ZAKAT 95

number of sinners varies between one and ten accordingto the dif-

ferent traditions which relate the whole affair, with the name of

Abfi Lubaba, Marwan b. cAbdal-Mundhir al-Ansdrioften said to

have been the central figure in it. From Ibn CAbbas, )alibk,Qatada, Zuhri (d. 124/741) and Ibn Zayd (d. 182/798), we learn

that the sinners concerned were those who did not join the Prophet

(takhallafzu)for the campaign of Tabuikand that they were ten in

number. Zayd b. Aslam (Ibn Zayd's father, Medinese, d.

136/753), however, says that their number was eight. Qatada, in

turn, is reportedto have also advocatedthe number of four, while

to others were attributed the views that the actual number was

variably six, five, three or only one person, AbuiLubTba.6'But theelement of Tabilk does not seem to have stuck well into this nar-

rative before the mid-second century Muqatil, Ibn Zayd and somefigures of the generation whichreportedfromthe "students" of IbncAbbas. More often than not we are merely told that the verse wasrevealed concerning AbuiLubaba and his associates (nazalatft abf

lubdbawa-ashdbihd)who tied themselves to the pillar (sdriya)of the

mosque as a sign of repentence, and were untied by the Prophet

only when Qurc'n IX: 102 was revealed. Then they came to the

Prophetofferinghim their propertyby which they hoped he would

purifytheir sin. However, the Prophet, we are told, refused to take

it until Qur'an IX: 103 was revealed.

Mujahid is cited as holding that the affairof AbulLubaba's guiltand repentance occurredrather when he informedBanfi Qurayza,who were besieged by the Prophet, that they were about to beexecuted.62And as cited by Bayhaqi, Sacidb. al-Musayyib (d. 93-

100/711-8) was reported to have combined the two occasions inwhich Abfu Lubaba committed such sin, i.e., Tabuik and Banfi

Qurayza, in one tradition.63 However, a cross-examinationof a few

other sources reveals some serious gaps in connecting the Banui

Qurayza affair with the verse under consideration. Muqatil, for

example, recordsthe treacherousbehaviour of AbuiLubaba in the

61 Cf. Muqatil, I, 159(b); 'Abd al-Razzaq, 53(b); Tabarl, XIV, 454-6; Wahidi,p. 195; Ibn cArabi, II, 1010; Razi, IV, 507; Qurtubi, IV, 3081; Nasafi, II, 143;Abul Hayyan (d. 754/1353), al-Bahral-Muh4t, Cairo 1328/1910, V, 94; Suyfiti,Durr,IV, 275, quoting Tabari, Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318/930), Ibn Abi Hatim, IbnWardawayh (d. 410/1019) and Bayhaqi's (d. 458/1065) Dald'il al-Nubuwwa.

62 Qurtubi, IV, 3081; AbuiHayyan, V, 94.63 Quoted by Suyfiti, Durr, IV, 276.



96 SULIMAN BASHEAR

Affairof BanuiQurayza in his commentaryon Qur'an VIII:27 and

does not mention the Prophet's takingof sadaqaout of his property

on that occasion.64Qummi, in turn, cites a tradition of al-Baqir

which claims that Qur'an IX: 103 was indeed revealed when Abfu

Lubaba repented following the affair with BanuiQurayza and that

he offeredall of his propertyto the Prophet, but the latter took only

one third of it.65But the same notion of extracting only one third

of Abui Lubaba's property on that occasion was forwardedby an

anonymous tradition cited in Wahidi's commentary on Qur'an

VIII:27.66As for the Siracompilationof Ibn Hisham (d. 213-8/828-

33), we notice that the traditionof Ibn Ishaq (d. 150/767) does not

mention the revelationof either verse or the extractionof sadaqaonAbiuLubaba's propertyfollowingthe affair of BanuiQurayza. Here

Ibn Hisham resorts to hadithsources on the matter. But note that

on the one hand he cites a tradition with the isndd: Sufyan b.

CUyayna(d. 198/813) - Ismaill b. Abi Khalid (d. 146/763)

cAbdAllah b. Abi Qatada (Medinese, d. 99/717), which says that

it was Qur'an VIII:27 that was revealed on that occasion. On the

other hand, Ibn Hisham quotes unspecifiedhadfthscholars(bacdahl

al-'ilm)who say that Qur'an IX: 102 was revealed concerning Abui

Lubaba's repentance, but fails to mention the extraction of any

sadaqafrom his property on that occasion.67

The legal roots and implicationsof these discrepanciesare worth

noting. They can be gauged from the way Malik b. Anas (d.

179/795) is reported to have used the tradition on the Prophet's

extractionof one third of AbulLubaba's property. For, as noted by

Ibn cArabiand Qurtubi, this traditionwas reported from Malik by

Ashhab (b. CAbdal-cAzlz, d. 204/819), Ibn al-Qasim (CAbdal-

Rahman, d. 191/806) and cAbdAllah b. Wahb (d. 197/812), and

on its basis the Maliki legal school ruled to extractone third of one's

property as a sadaqa.As against this, the Shafici and Hanafi rites

put forwarda traditionaccordingto which the Prophettold another

repenter, Kacbb. Malik, to keep an unspecifiedamount of his pro-

perty and, hence, they contradicted the ruling concerning the

extraction of one third. Needless to say, from the way the whole

64 Muqatil, I, 143(b).65 Qummli, I, 303-4.66 WIidi, pp. 175-6.67 Ibn Hisham, al-Sfraal-Nabawiyya,Beirut 1975, III, 143-4.



ZAKAT 97

issue was tackledby Ibn 'Arab! in particular, it is clear that what

remained for Muslim scholars was to argue whether the Abui

Lubaba tradition was a sahThone.68

Probablymore importantfrom the point of view of the develop-

ment of zakdt,was the question whether Qur'an IX: 103 was to be

considered as the verse which ordained it as the Muslim regular

duty or just a sadaqaof repentance (al-kaffdra)levied specifically

from the sinners concerned. The information provided by our

sources points to 'Ikrima and Juwaybir (d. 140-50/757-67) Ibn

cAbbas as holding the former view while the latter was associated

with the name of Hasan al-Basri.69We are also told that Malik

tended to accept this latter view which has some implicationscon-

cerning the refusal by certain Bedouin tribes of the regulation of

zakdton its basis and their claim that this was a particularcase of

levying sadaqapersonally by the Prophet from those who sinned.70

To this last point we shall come back in the section on the ridda

(apostasy). One must note here that the positionof the exegetes (ahl

al-tafsfr)and most legal scholars(al-fuqah/d)that this verse implied

the ordaining of regular zakdtupon the Muslims, had to face the

more general meaning implied by it, i.e. that the aim ofzakatlsadaqa

was the purificationof sins. And this difficulty is clearly reflected

in the variant reading of tutahhirhumltathuruhumin reference to

either the Prophet or to the sadaqaitself as the purifier of sins.71Also noteworthyis the second part of verse IX: 103 in which the

Prophet was ordered to pray for those who pay the sadaqa(wa-salli

calayhiminna saldtakasakanunlahum). Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889)

understands prayer here as supplication (ducdY).72From the

exegetical commentaries on this verse we learn that whenever

zakdtlsadaqawas paid, the Prophet prayed for the cleans-

ing/forgiveness of the donor's sins. In the words of Tabari, what

was meant by it was that "your (= Muhammad's) supplication

and request for their forgiveness is tranquillity(tuma'nina) to them

68 Cf. Ibn 'Arab!, II, 1011; Tabarsi, X, 134; Qurtubi, IV, 3081.69 Razi, IV, 507-8; Qurtubi, IV, 3082.70 Qurtubi,IV, 3083.71

Zaijjj (d. 311/923), Maceinfal-Qur'an wa-ICribuhu,Beirut 1988, II, 467; IbncArabi,II, 1010; Tabarsi, X, 134; Razi, IV, 508-9; Nasafi, II, 144; AbufHayyan,V, 95; Baydawi, I, 400.

72 Ibn Qutayba, Gharfbal-Hadith, Beirut 1988, I, 15.



98 SULIMAN BASHEAR

that God has forgiven them and accepted their repentance" (inna

du'daaka wa- stighfdrakatuma'ninatun lahum bi-anna i-ldha qad 'afd

'anhumwa-qabilatawbatahum).For this he relies on a tradition of Ibn

cAbbas (from the family line of cAtiyya al-cAwfi) which interprets

wa-salli calayhim"as "request on their behalf for forgiveness of the

sins which they committed." The same was attributed to Ibn

cAbbas by IbnJurayj (d. 150/767) as well as reported from Dahhak

and forwarded by Muqatil.73 And Abui cUbayda, Ibn Qutayba,

Zajjaj and some later scholars understand "prayer" in this case as

supplication (ducdY),mercy (rahma)and forgiveness (maghfira).74

Clear support for this notion comes from the hadithgenre in the

form of a widely circulated tradition associated with the name of theCompanion cAbd Allah b. Abi Awfa. It attributes to the latter the

saying that the Prophet used to pray for people from whom they

brought their sadaqdtand that once he made such a prayer on behalf

of cAbd Allah's father, Abuf Awfa.75 From one source we uniquely

learn that the Companion Bashir b. al-Khasasiya from the tribe of

Saduis advised a certain relative of his, named Dalsam (possibly

Daysam al-Sadiisi) to ask the collectors of sadaqato pray for him as

stated in Qur'an IX: 103 explaining that this would safeguard

against ill treatment by the latter.76 However, the isnddinformation

and certain variations in the tradition of Ibn Abi Awfa provides a

better ground for dating. From such information one can easily

conclude that the one responsible for circulating this latter tradition

73 Tabari, XIV, 454-6; Suyuit1, Durr, IV, 281, quoting Ibn Abi HIatim,Muqatil, I, 159(b).

74 Abiu 'Ubayda (d. 210/825), Majdz al-Qur'an,Cairo 1988, I, 268; IbnQutayba, Ta'wilMushkilal-Qur'dn,Cairo 1973, pp. 460-1; idem,TafstrGharTbal-Qur'dn, Beirut 1978, p. 192; Zajjaj, II, 467; Baghawi, Sharh, V, 486;Zamakhshari, II, 170-1.

75 Tayalisi (d. 204/819), Musnad,Beirut 1406/1985, p. 110; CAbdal-Razzaq (d.211/826), Musannaf,Beirut 1983, IV, 58; Ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), Musnad,Cairo1313/1895, IV, 353, 355, 381, 383; Bukhri- (d. 254/868), $aht.h,Beirut 1981, II,136; Muslim (d. 261/874), $aih4, Beirut n.d., III, 121; Ibn Maja (d. 275/888),Sunan, Cairo 1952, I, 572; Ibn Qutayba, Mushkil,p. 461; Nasa7i (d. 303/915),Sunan, Cairo 1987, V, 31; Ibn al-Jariud(d. 307/919), al-MuntaqaMin al-Sunan,

Beirut 1987, p. 150; Tabarani (d. 360/970), al-Mujam al-Kabfr,Baghdad 1983,XVIII, 10; Bayhaql (d. 458/1065), al-Sunanal-Kubra,Beirut 1986, IV, 157;Baghawl, Sharh,V, 485; Tabarsi, X, 133-4; Ibn Hajar (d. 852/1448), Buluighal-Mardm,Beirut 1982, p. 145; Suyu-ti,Durr,IV, 281, quoting Ibn Abi Shayba (d.235/849), Bukharl, Muslim, Ibn Maja, AbuiDawiud,Nasa'i, Ibn al-Mundhir (d.318/930) and Ibn Mardawayh (d. 410/1019).

76 Suyiiti, Durr, IV, 282, quoting Ibn Mardawayh and al-Baru-di'sMarijfatal-Sahdba.



ZAKAT 99

was the mid-second century ShuCbab. al-Hajiaj(d. 160/776). And

this is indirectly supported by an isolated report cited by the early

cAbd al-Razzaq which seemingly aimed to contradictthe notion of

supplicationmade by the collectoron behalf of the payer of sadaqa.

According to it, Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767) asked 'Ata' (b. Abi

Rabah?, d. 114/732) whetherhe had heardof any such supplication

being made in accordance with Qur'an IX:103, and the latter's

answerwas in the negative.77However, cAbdal-Razzaq's contem-

porary, ShMfici,is quoted as having stood in favour of making such

supplication and even as developing a certain formula of it which

conveys a trace of the element of purification, though the element

of guilt committed by the payer is not mentioned. "May God", itsays, "recompense you for what you have given, make it a purifier,

and bless what you have kept" (uhibbuanyaqulal-wdlzcindaakhdhi

s-sadaqatz:ajarakal-ldhuft-md actaytawa-jaCalahutuhu-ranwa-barakalaka

ft-ma abqayta).78

The Ridda Contextand theAbuiBakr-cUmarI Controversy

In an isolated tradition bearing the name of the Companion Abui

Umama al-Bahili, Thaclaba b. Habib al-Ansari is said to have

refused to abide by Qur'an IX: 103 and, when asked by the Prophet

to pay sadaqa,consideredit as equal tojizya, saying: "by God, thisis but a sister to jizya" (wa-l-ldhimadhddhihiilld ukhayyatul-jizya).79

However, what seems to be a better reflectionof cases of refusal to

pay zakatand of considering it as a fine (maghram)is Qur'an IX:98

which is wholly dedicated to blaming certain Bedouins for that.

One notices that most commentaries understand the payment

referred to by this verse as the requested sadaqa saying that

Bedouins used to pay it hypocritically and fearfully (riya'anwa-

taqiyyatan)without believing in any recompensation (thawdb)by it

and hoping that the Muslim rule (ghalaba)would pass away. In

some sources, the notion is forwardedthat the payment meant here

is aimed also for the purpose of jihd.d80From other ones we learn

77 'Abd al-Razzaq, Musannaf,IV, 57.78 Zamakhsharl,II, 170-1; cf. also Bayhaql, Sunan,IV, 157; Tabarsi, X, 133-4.79 Tabarani, al-Mu'jamal-Kabfr,VIII, 260-1.80 Cf. Muqatil, I, 158(b); Fayr-azabadi(d. 817/1414), Tanwfr al-MiqbasMin

TafsfrIbn CAbbds,Beirut n.d., p. 127; Ibn Qutayba, Tafsfr, p. 191; Zamakhshari,II, 168; Tabarsi, X, 124-5; Qurtubi, IV, 3073; Nasafi, II, 142; Baydawi, I, 399.



100 SULIMAN BASHEAR

that Dahhak and Suddi understood the requested payment as sada-

qdtextracted from properties or what is spent "in the way of God"

(fi sabfli 1-ldhi).81But probably more revealing is the notion for-

warded by Ibn Zayd that the Bedouins referred to used to make

such payment hypocritically in order to avoid being raided and

fought against and, hence, considered their spending as a fine

(maghram).82Farra' (d. 207/822) and Zajjaj are quoted as saying

that the hypocritic Bedouins used at the same time to wish that the

Muslims and their Prophet die or be killed in order to be freed of

the payment which they considered merely as a fine without any

recompensation.83 And warning against such an attitude comes in

the form of two unique prophetical traditions, though the ones

referred to by them are not explicitly said to be Bedouins. In one,

associated with the name of Abui Hurayra, the Prophet urges

people not to forget the recompensation of zakdtwhich, he explains,

is earned by asking God to consider it as booty (maghnam),not a fine

(maghram).84The second, attributed to the Prophet through a family

line of Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148/765) says that considering zakdt as a

fine is one of the ominous signs for the end of times (ld taqiimus-

saCatuhatta takuina... z-zakdtu maghraman).85

But the widest coverage of cases of Bedouin tribes who refused

to pay zakdt was traditionally related to the period of the ridda wars

after the Prophet's death. This led several western scholars, like

Wellhausen, Caetani, Brockelmann and others to emphasize the

socio-political and economic revolt of these wars, belittle their

religious motives and even question the very applicability of the

term "apostasy" to them.86 Others, like Wensinck and Kister,

doubted the authenticity of the traditional reports especially on the

positions attributed to Abui Bakr and 'Umar I, while they con-

sidered them as indicating that the obligation of paying zakdt to

Abufal-Shaykh and Ibn AbiIHatim, quoted by Suyati, Durr, IV, 267.82 Tabari, XIV, 431; Suyu-ti,Durr,IV, 267, quoting Ibn Abi Hatim.83 Quoted by Tabarsi, X, 124-5.84

Ibn 'Asakir, VII, 452.85 Majlisi, XCIII, 28.86 J. Wellhausen, DasArabischeReichundSeinSturz,repr. Berlin, 1960, pp. 14-5;

C. Brockelmann, Historyof theIslamicPeoples,N.Y. 1947, pp. 45-6. For Caetani'sview, see A.J. Wensinck, MuslimCreed,Leiden 1932, p. 12. See also B. Lewis, TheArabs in History, London 1958, p. 51; M.A. Sha'ban, Islamic History, a New Inter-pretation, Cambridge 1971, pp. 19-23; E. Shoufani, Al-Ridda and theMuslim Con-questof Arabia,Beirut 1972, pp. 10-47, 71-106.



ZAKAT 101

the rulers was questioned as late as the second century A. H., but

still emphasized the socio-economic and political rather than

theological motives behind the ridda wars.87 Of the scholars who

highlighted the religious aspects of the riddawars, mention may be

made of M.W. Watt and E. Landau-Tasseron, though the former

did so because he accepted the traditional Muslim view on the

matter.88

All this justifies a further examination of the reports on the

motives for the refusal to pay zakdt after the Prophet's death as well

as other related issues. One may recall here the information, briefly

noted above,89 that Malik b. Anas tended to accept the rationale for

such refusal during Abui Bakr's reign, namely that the imperative

verb khudhof Qur'an IX: 103 applied personally to the Prophet and

that, since the latter was the only one empowered by God to levy

zakdt in return for making the prayer and invocation to purify the

payers, such a condition ceased to exist with his death; hence, the

duty to pay zakdtto his successor does not apply. Also of importance

is the fact, noted by Kister, that, following Shafici, some scholars

differentiated between two different kinds of murtaddiin:those who

renounced Islam completely and followed the "false prophets",

and those who adhered to Islam, were ready to perform prayer but

refused only to pay zakdt, saying that, according to Qur'an IX: 103,

only the Prophet was empowered to purify them in return. 90

Clearly, as Kister rightly notes, the question at stake, at least for

the Shica, was recognizing Abiu Bakr's authority after the Prophet,

a fact testified by a poetical verse usually cited in this context and

alternatively attributed to al-Hutay'a, his brother, al-Khutayl b.

Aws, Haritha b. Suraqa al-Kindi and possibly others

87 Wensinck, pp. 13-4; M.A. Kister, "... illa bi-haqqihi ....", JerusalemStudiesin ArabicandIslam, 5 (1984), 51-2.

88 E. Landau-Tasseron, Aspectsof theRidda Wars,unpublished Ph.D. disserta-tion, the Hebrew University ofJerusalem, 1981, pp. 3-4; W.M. Watt, Muhammad

at Medina,Oxford 1956, pp. 147-8.89 See note 70, above.90 Kister, pp. 35-6. Cf. Shafili, al-Umm,Cairo 1322/1904, IV, 135; al-Busti (d.

388/998), Mac'limal-Sunan,Halab 1933, II, 5-6; Ibn cArabi, II, 1006-7; Ibn Abial-Hadid, SharhNahjal-Baldgha,Cairo 1963, XVII, 210; Baghawi, Shark,V, 491;Qurtubi, IV, 3083; Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1372) al-Biddyawa-l-Nihdya,Cairo 1932,VI, 311. See also Ibn Actham al-Kilfi (d. 214/829), Kitubal-Futiih,Beirut 1986,I, 14, where such differentiation is made without mentioning Qur'an IX: 103.



102 SULIMAN BASHEAR

too.9' It is worth noting that, as cited by one source in a report car-

ried by a clear Syrian line of isndd, this verse was placed in the con-

text of Abui Bakr's dispatch of Khalid b. al-Walid to reinforce the

Muslim forces of occupation in Syria.92 But it is probably more

important to note, as E. Landau-Tasseron has, that there is nothing

in the verse which implies that only the political and not the

religious authority of Abui Bakr was challenged. Actually, one verse

of the poem could be taken to imply that the rebels considered the

prayer of purification which they expected in return "as sweet or

even sweeter for them than dates" (wa-inna l-ladhi sacaliikumufa-

manaCtumu,la-ka-t-tamri aw ahld ladayhim mina t-tamri).

Another important element which figures centrally in the reports

on the refusal to pay zakat by the ridda people was cUmar's initial

opposition to Abui Bakr's decision to fight them in spite of the fact

that they were ready to profess the testimony of faith (shahada)and

perform prayer. But before conducting a detailed examination of

these reports note must be made of a few traditions which attribute

to cUmar a certain opposition to the enforcement of paying the

zakdt also during the Prophet's lifetime. They are unusually cited

in the context of interpreting the above-mentioned Qur'an IX:34

and bear the names of the Companions Ibn cAbbas and Thawban

as well as that of the Successor Salim b. Abi al-Jacd (d. 97-101/715-

9). From Ibn cAbbas we hear through the link: Jacfar b. Iyas (AbufBishr, d. 123-31/740-8) Mujahid. We are told that when Qur'an

IX:34 was revealed, people complained that they could leave

nothing for their children to inherit. cUmar spoke on their behalf

and the Prophet explained that zakdt was ordained so that the

remainder of their property be purified (li-yalfba bihd amwdlukum)

91 Kister, pp. 38-40, notes 15, 16, 19. 20. This verse usually opens with saying:ataCndrasuila1-lihi makdnabaynand,fa-yd la-cibddi1-lahima-li-abi bakri.For the variant wording and attributionof it, see al-Hutay'a, Dfwan, Cairo 1958,pp. 329-30; Shaficl, IV, 134; Ibn Actham, I, 49; al-Busti, II, 4; al-Baghdadl,Khizdnatal-Adab,Cairo 1967, II, 408, quoting Ibn Qutayba; Ibn cAbdal-Barr, al-

Tamhfd, Rabat 1974, IV, 232; al-Mawardi, al-Ahkdmal-Sultdniyya,Cairo1282/1880, pp. 54-5; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, XVII, 211-2; Yaqut, Mu jamal-Bulddn,Leipzig 1867, II, 286-7; Ibn Kathir, VI, 313. Cf. also the sourcescited by Kister,p. 35, n. 9, and E. Landau-Tasseron, pp. 131-2, n. 113.

92 Bayhaqi (d. 458/1065), al-Sunanal-Kubrd,Beirut 1986, VIII, 178, the full lineof isnadbeing: ... Yacquibb. Sufyan (al-Fasawl, d. 277/987) - Abiual-Yaman al-Hakam b. Nafic (Hims, d. 211-2/826-7) - Safwdn b. cAmr (Himsi, d. 155/771)

cAbd al-Rahman b. Jubayr b. Nufayr (d. 118/736).



ZAKAT 103

and that the properties which they leave behind were safeguarded

by the laws of inheritance (al-mawdrfth).93

The Thawban and Salim b. Abi al-JaCd traditions are almost

identical in content. They do not explicitly refer to zakdt and say

only that when this verse was revealed people complained by

wondering what kind of property they were allowed to acquire. We

are also told that, in answer to 'Umar's enquiry the Prophet said

that the best kind of property is "a tongue to admonish God, a

heart to thank Him, and a good/believing wife to help one in the

matters of his religion. " A close look at the isnddof these traditions

reveals that they were basically transmitted from Salim and that the

chain of Thawban was added to the line only in some variants

reported from Salim by Mansuir b. al-Mu'tamir (d. 132/749), 'Amr

b. Murra (d. 116-8/734-6) and a certain Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah

al-Muradi. Note also that when the tradition is reported from Man-

suir and CAmr by either Thawri (d. 161/777) or al-ACmash

(Sulayman b. Mihran, d. 145-8/762-5), then the isndd line ends

with Salim b. Abi al-JaCd.94

Coming back to 'Umar's opposition to Abu Bakr during the ridda

wars, one notes that it usually takes the form of attributing to the

Prophet the saying that he was ordered to fight people until they

profess that there was no God but Allah, and that from the moment

they pronounce such a statement, their blood and properties would

be safeguarded except for the rights due on them, with God being

the only one to whom they should account (umirtuan uqdtila l-ndsa

hattdyaquluzla ildha illd 1-ldh,fa-idha qdliiha casamuiminni dimadahumwa-

amwdlahum illd bi-haqqihalwa-4hisdbuhum(ald 1-ldh). As against this,

Abu Bakr is usually quoted as swearing to fight against those who

distinguish between prayer and zakdt, the latter being the right due

out of property, even if it was only a camel's rope which they used

to pay to the Prophet (wa-l-ldhi la-uqdtilannamanfarraqa baynal-saldti

wa-l-zakdti,fa-inna l-zakdtahaqqu1-mdli, wa-l-ldhi law manaCuiniciqdlan

kdnuyu 'addtinahuild rasuili1-ldhi la-qdtaltuhumcalayhz).

Roughly speaking, such reports were attributed to Anas, Ibn

cUmar, AbM Hurayra, Jabir and other Companions as well as

93 Bayhaqi, ShuCabal-Iman, Beirut 1990, III, 194; Qurtubi, IV, 2965, quotingAbu Dawuid (d. 275/888).

94 Thawrl, Tafsir,Beirut 1983, p. 123; Ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), Musnad,Cairo1313/1895, V, 278, 282; Tabari, XIV, 220-3; WMhidi,p. 184; Tabarsi, X, 53;Suyiti-, Durr, IV, 176-8.



104 SULIMAN BASHEAR

reported from Successorsin mursalforms and come within different

contexts and variations. The ones relating'Umar's position usually

conclude with his saying that he was convinced by Abui Bakr.

Noting this latter kind of report, Wensinck generally expressedthe

view that "they were preparedin later times with a view to ques-

tions that were then urgent."95 To this, Kister rightly adds the

observation that "the precedent of AbuiBakr had to serve as an

example fordealingwith similar casesof revolt in the contemporary

Muslim Empire."96 And Landau-Tasseronsuggeststhat those who

justified wars against those who refused to pay alms, not only

during the reign of AbuiBakr but also in later times, had to identify

them as murtaddiinwho are worse than just infidels. On the other

hand, she says, "the fact that the position of Abui Bakr needed

justificationpoints to some objectionsnot only contemporaneoustoit but also in later times when the (relevant) traditions

crystallized."97 In order to elaborate further on dating what seems

to be a processof turning the payment of zakdtinto an obligation,

but without going into further details of the riddawars themselves,

a closer examination of the relevant reports is unavoidable.

To begin with, according to the tradition associated with the

name of Ibn 'Umar, the Prophet says that he was ordered to fight

against people until they not only profess the two testimonies of

faith but also perform prayer and pay zakdt(4attdyashhadiu... wa-yuqfmu-1-saldtawa-yutk 1-zakdta...). Note also that this tradition

brings the Prophet's statement in its own right, i.e. without the

context of Abuf Bakr's policy, cUmar's intervention, or the riddawars in the first place.98

According to the traditionof Anas, the conditionsfor not fightingwere stated to be professing the twoshahddas,facingthe qiblain their

prayer and eating meat slaughtered according to Muslim law.

There is no doubt that this tradition belongs to a later stage of

establishing certain criteria concerning who is a believer whom

Muslims should not fight and does not relate to zakdtin particular.

95 Wensinck, p. 14.96 Kister, p. 38.97 Landau-Tasseron, p. 15.98 BukhMri, I, 11-2; Muslim, I, 39; Muhammad b. Nasr al-Marwazi (d.

294/906), TaCz4mQadral-Saldt,Medina 1406/1985, I, 89-95; al-Busti, II, 10-11;Ibn Manda (d. 395/1004), Kitdbal-Imdn,Beirut 1985, I, 165-6; Baghawi, Sharlh,I, 67-8.



ZAKAT 105

Note also that it was transmittedexclusively by the link: Ibn al-

Mubarak (181/797) - lIumayd al-Tawil (d. 143/760), and com-

paring the stylistic variations in it shows that its literaryform was

the product of the generation which circulated it from Ibn al-

Mubarak.99One must add that, as such, this tradition does not

mention the involvement of cUmar or the ridda context. And

though this context is mentioned by an isolated variant of it

transmittedfrom Anas by the link: Macmarb. Rashid (d. 153/770)

Zuhri (d. 124/741), the comment of the traditionist Ibn Abi

Hatim (d. 327/839) leaves no doubt that this was a confused

moulding with another tradition associatedwith the name of Abui

Hurayra, the circulation of which was made through Zuhri too.100No mention of cUmar's involvement, the riddacontext or any

conditions apart from the shahddawas made by less circulated tradi-

tions associatedwith the names of the Companions AbuiBakr,Jabir

b. cAbd Allah, Jartiral-Bajall, Sahl b. Sacd, Samura b. Jundab, Ibn

cAbbas, Abui Malik al-Ashcari, al-Nucman b. BashIr, Mucadh b.

Jabal, a certain cousin of a man from Balqin and a mursalreport

of Ibrahim al-Nakhaci(d. 96/714),101 and the same can be noted for

most variants of the widely circulated tradition of Abut Hurayra,transmitted from him by Sacidb. al-Musayyib (d. 93-100/711-8),

Abiu Salama b. cAbd al-Rahman (d. 94-104/712-22), Abiu Salih

(Dhakwan al-Samman, d. 101/719), al-Hasan (al-Basr1?), Ham-

mam b. Munabbih (d. 132/749), al-Acraj (cAbd al-Rahman b.

Hurmuz, d. 110-17/728-35), cAbd al-Rahman b. Abi cAmra (death

date unknown), cAbdal-Rahman b. Yacqfibal-Juhani(death date

99 Cf. Ibn al-Mubarak,Musnad,Riyad 1987, p. 147; Ibn Hanbal, III, 199, 224-5; Tirmidhi (d. 279/892), Cairo 1934, X, 71-4; Marwazi, ibid.; al-BustY,ibid.,quoting Abfu Dawuid; Baghawl, Sharh, I, 69; Abu Nasr al-Ytindrti (comp. in521/1127), Hadtth,Ms. Zahiriyya, Daamascus,majmzuc/24,p. 91; Haythami (d.807/1404), Majmacal-Zawa'id,Cairo and Beirut 1987, I, 26; quoting Tabarani'sal-Mu'jamal-Awsatwith additional variations.

100 Ibn Abi Hatim, cIlal al-Hadtth, Beirut 1985, II, 152-3, 159-60, quoting Abu-Zurca(al-Rdzi, d. 264/878). Cf. also Bayhaql, Sunan, VIII, 177.

101Muslim, I, 40; Ibn Maja, II, 1295; Marwazi, Tacz4m,I, 95 (cf. also his al-

Sunna,Beirut 1988, pp. 49-50, where, owing to an obvious textual confusion, oneis led to understand that the ones meant by this statement are theJews and Chris-tians); Tabarani, al-Mujam al-Kabir,VI, 132; VIII, 382; XI, 201; AbulTThir al-Dhuhall (d. 367/977), IHadtth,Kuweit 1986, pp. 23-4; Bayhaqi, Sunan, VIII,Haythami, I, 25-6, quoting Tabarani's al-Mu5am al-Kabir and al-Mujam al-Awsatand Bazzar's (d. 292/904) Musnad.According to the mursal report of al-Nakhac1,Abui Bakr stated his position invoking Qur'an III:144. See for it Ibn Abi Shayba(d. 235/849), Mu.yannaf,Bombay 1970, III, 114.



106 SULIMAN BASHEAR

unknown) and father of Abiual-CAnbas(Kathir b. CUbayd,death

date unknown).102Note also that the reporter of the tradition of

AbuiSlih - Abii Hurayrais al-A'mash (Sulaymanb. Mihran, d.

145-8/762-5) who reported the same from Abui Sufyan (Talha b.

Nafic al-Wasiti, death date unknown) - Jabir. And the fact that

Sacid b. al-Musayyib's transmission from Abu Hurayra was

reported by Zuhri can also be suggestive concerning the dating of

this tradition. For, this is basically different from another variant

of a tradition of Abui Hurayra which Zuhri reports from cUbayd

Allah b. cAbd Allah b. cUtba b. Masciid(d. 92-9/710-7) where the

Prophet's statement is said to have been invoked by cUmar in the

context of his controversy with AbuiBakr over fighting against the

ridda people.

All in all, then, attributing such controversy to AbiuBakr and

cUmar in the context of the riddais made only by this last variant

of Zuhri's tradition which actually opens with the introductory

note: "when the Prophet died and AbuiBakr came and the Arabs

apostasized ..." etc.. And from Zhuri it was widely circulated by

several mid-second century figures like cUqayl b. Khalid al-

Umawi, Yahya b. Sacid al-Ansari, Muhammad b. al-Walid al-

Zubaydi, Shucayb b. Abi Hamza, cAbd al-Rahman b. Khalid b.

Musafir, Muhammad b. Hadar (Khidr), Sulayman b. Kathir, the

biographer Muhammad b. Ishaq, Yu-nus b. Yazid al-Ayli andMuhammad b. AbI Hafsa. Comparing the slight variation in its

wording suggests that its wide circulation was the product of efforts

by people who reported it from this generation in the second half

of the second century. Note also that as reported from Zuhri by

Macmar b. Rashid, this tradition is presented as a mursalone of

cUbaydAllah b. cAbd Allah b. cUtba;when reported by Sufyan b.

cUyayna (d. 198/813) it is even a mursalof Zuhri himself; and when

reported by Sufyan b. al-Husayn (d. ca. 170/786) it is not clear

whether it included the element of the ridda.103

102 Muslim, I, 38-9; Ibn Maja, II, 1295; Tirmidhi, X, 68-9; Abuial-Fawdris

al-Zaynabi, Amdlf, Ms. Zahiriyya, Damascus, majmuzi/35, p. 94; Marwazi,Tacz4m,I, 89-95; Tabarani, al-Mu?am al-Awsat, Riyad 1986, II, 158-9; IbnManda, I, 508; Tammam al-Razi (d. 414/1023), Fawd'id, Beirut 1989, I, 84-6;Bayhaql, Sunan, I, 38-9, 106; III, 186; IV, 338; VIII, 177, 196, 202; Baghawl,Sharh,I, 65-6.

103 Cf. Ibn Hanbal, I, 11, 19, 35-6; Bukharl, II, 109-10; Muslim, I, 38; Tir-midhi, X, 70-1; Nasali (d. 303/915), Sunan,Cairo 1987, V, 14-5; al-Busti, II, 2;Ibn Manda, I, 164-6, 382; Bayhaqi, Sunan,I, 188; VIII, 176-8.



ZAKAT 107

In a few sources, the AbudBakr-'Umar controversy is brought

either without sufficient traditional information or in a form imply-

ing a discourse about the position of CUmar.104 Qatada was once

reported by Sacid b. Abi cAruiba (d. 156-7/772-3) as placing Abut

Bakr's insistence on fighting against people who refused to pay

zakdt within the context of interpreting Qur'an V:54. However,

though this report hints at a certain opposition to AbutBakr, it does

not specify cUmar or any other companion for it.105 In another uni-

que report cited by al-Jahiz (d. 255/868), the opposition to Abu

Bakr by invoking the above-mentioned prophetical statement is

said to have come from the Ansar and Muhajiru-n.'06 From a family

report of Yahya b. Yacmar/Yacmur, we learn that opposition to

Abut Bakr was shared by all the Companions of the Prophet except

cAll who encouraged him to enforce the payment of zakdt.'07

Various elements of the position of Abui Bakr as well as opposi-

tion to him casually occur in a few "historical" reports on the ridda.

An isolated one, cited by Ibn Actham, attributes such opposition to

the Companion AbMAyyub al-Ansari in the context of the riddaof

Banut Kinda under al-Ashcath b. Qays. Needless to note that at the

center of this report stands Abui Bakr's persistence in his position

on fighting against those who refused to pay "even a camel's rope

which they used to pay to the Prophet''.108

Two similar narratives on the ridda of BanutKinda were cited by

Tabari, Ibn cAsakir and other sources. One of them bears the name

of Ibn Ishaq (from cAbd Allah b. Abi Bakr, d. 130-5/747-52), and

the other is carried by an isndd ending with Ibrahim al-Nakhaci.109

We notice that in this latter report AbM Bakr refused to accept Banut

Kinda's willingness to pray without payment of zakdt, insisted on

104 Shafici, al-Umm, IV, 134; Ibn Hibban, al-Stra al-Nabawiyya wa-Akhbadral-Khulafd', Beirut 1987, p. 430; Mawardi, al-Ahkdmal-Sultaniyya, Cairo 1298/1880,pp. 54-5; Ibn 'Arabi, al-CAwdsimMin al-Qawdsim,Cairo 1408/1987, pp. 63-4; IbnKathir, al-Biddya wa-l-Nihdya, Cairo 1932, VI, 311; Dhahabi, Tdrikh al-Isldm,Beirut 1987, III, 27; al-Muhibb al-Tabari, al-Ryaddal-Nadira,Cairo 1970, I, 175;Suyiti-, Tdrikh al-Khulafd',Beirut 1986, pp. 84-6. Note that the phrase usually

applied here "wa-can'umara"could also be taken to mean "and about 'Umar".105 Bayhaql, Sunan,VIII, 177-8.106 Al-Jahiz, al-cUthmanziyya,Cairo 1955, pp. 81-2.107 Al-Muhibb al-Tabari, 1, 175-6.108 Ibh Actham, I, 58. For the other cases of refusal to pay zakdtby Qurra b.

Hubayra al-Qushayrl and Malik b. Nuwayra al-Tamimi, see his I, 23, 25-6.109 Tabarl, Tdrikh, Beirut 1967, III, 339; Ibn cAsakir, III, 43; Majlisi (d.

1111/1699), Bihalral-Anwair,Beirut 1983, XXVIII, 11, quoting TUisi'sAmdlf.



108 SULIMAN BASHEAR

waging jihdd against anyone who refuses to pay even a camel's

rope, and invoked Qur'an III:144 on that occasion.

The reports on the refusal of Hadramawt to pay zakatto Abui

Bakr bear the names of Sayf b. 'Umar (d. 180/796), Yuinus b.

Bukayr (d. 199/814) and Waqidi (d. 207/822). What is common

between them all is the element of Abfi Bakr's insistence on pay-

ment of zakdt.However, they sharplydifferon the issues of opposi-

tion to him, the leaders of the rebels, the involvement of Baniu

Kinda, the above-mentioned poetical verses on disobedience to

Abui Bakr and other minor details."10

The refusal of Banui Tamim and Banfi Hanifa to pay zakdtis

mentioned by the reports of Waqidi (from cUqba b. Jubayra),

Muhammad b. cAbd Allah and Usama b. Zayd al-Laythi (both

from Zuhri) and Muhammad b. cAbd Allah b. cUrwa (from his

father).11'However, these reports do not include any reference to

the positions of either Abuf Bakr or cUmar or indeed any Qur'anic

verse being invoked or poetry uttered on that occasion. From

Tabari we hear of two reports by Sayf on the riddaof a confedera-

tion of BaniuAsad, Ghatafan an Tay'. We also learn that these

tribes sent delegations to Medina proposing to perform prayer but

not pay zakdt and that these delegations were sponsored by the

leaders there (wujuihu1-ndsz)except al-cAbbas. However, no men-

tion of the invocation of the above-noted prophetical statement onthe matter is made in this context, though Abui Bakr's insistence on

fighting even for a camel's rope occurs in one of them."12 Finally,

there is one report of Sayf (from Hisham b. cUrwa - his father)

in which Qurra b. Hubayra complains about the payment of sadaqa

which he considers "a tax" (itdwa) and promises that the Arabs

woule obey if exempted from it."'

11O

Cf. Tabari, Tdrikh,Beirut 1967, III, 339; Ibn CAsakir,III, 37-40; IX, 639;Zaylali (d. 762/1360), Nasbal-Raya, Cairo 1938, II, 342, quoting Waqidi's Kitabal-Ridda. For this last source, see E. Landau-Tasseron, p. 20 and n. 106 inreference to M. Murayni, "Ein neuer Bericht uber die Wahl des ersten Kalifen",Arabica,25 (1978), pp. 236 ff.

" Ibn 'Asakir, V, 555.112 Cf. Tabari, Tdrfkh,III, 244-6, 258; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya,VI, 312.113 Tabari, Tdrzkh,III, 259.



ZAKAT 109

Scholars'ViewsandConcludingRemarks:

This last kind of historical reports on the riddawars as well as

some of the exegetical traditionson Qur'an IX:98 may contain a

grain of truth about actual cases in which certain Bedouin tribes

resisted the enforcement of paying zakdtand considered it as a tax,

fine or even a kind ofjizya. It is strikingto note, however, that such

reports do not figure at all in the second century theological con-

troversiesover the obligatorynature of zakdt,which centered on the

question of whether those who refuse to pay it should be fought

against. Such controversies drew basicallyupon the hadathmaterial

where the two opposite views were attributed to AbuiBakr on theone hand and 'Umar, by invoking the above-mentioned pro-

phetical tradition, on the other.

An example of such use is the way in which the early AbufYiusuf

(d. 182/798) cites the above-mentioned tradition of Jabir b. 'Abd

Allah, on the conditions for fighting against non-believers, as a

basis for the legal ruling concerning one who apostasizes(al-hukmu

Jf1-murtaddicani 1-isldmi).According to him, this tradition implies

that such a person should be requested to repent (yustatdb).From

the way the whole issue is presented one can also gauge theexistence of an opposite view which relied on another prophetical

statement saying: "he who changes his religion should be killed"

(man baddaladinahufa-qtulzihu)."14And the comment made byBaghawi leaves no doubt that such legal controversy also stood

behind the circulation of the traditions of Ibn cUmar and Anas

which, as noted above, do give detailed conditions in which a non-

Muslim should be combatted. In Baghawi'swords, these traditionsmeant for most scholars (wa-huwa qawlu akthariahli l-cilm) that the

repentanceof a zindaqmust be acceptedthough his sincerityshould

be left to God. However, he says, Malik and Ibn Hanbal addedthat such repentanceshould not be accepted from one who conceals

his infidelity (ld tuqbalutawbatul-kdfiri 1-mustasirribi-kufrihi).115

A similar use of the widely circulated tradition of Zuhri from

cUbayd Allah - AbiuHurayra, was made by al-Busti. Referringto the phrase "wa-hisdbuhum cala l-ldh", he says that "most

scholars" held that an infidel who conceals his unbelief should notbe punished if he demonstrates Islam and his repentanceshould be

114 AbuiYiusuf,Kitab al-Khardj,Cairo 1352/1933, p. 180.115 Baghawl, Sharh,I, 69.



110 SULIMAN BASHEAR

accepted even when he admits that he previously used to conceal

disbelief. We also learn that Malik, and possibly Ibn Hanbal too

(wa-yuhkddhdlikaaydan 'an ahmadbni hanba), used in turn to reject

the repentanceof a zindiq.16 From another sourcewe learn that Ibn

Hanbal in particular held that one who does not pay his zakdt

should be severelyexhortedwith the aim of causing him to repent,

but no mention of consideringhim an unbelieveror fighting againsthim is made.117 And Ibn CAbd al-Barr says that Makhlul (d.

118/736), Hammad b. Zayd (d. 179/795), Wakic (d. 197/812),

Shafic1, his student Abui Thawr (Ibrahim b. Khalid al-Kalbi, d.

240/854) and all followers of the Shaficite school understood Abiu

Bakr's vow to fight against people who separate between prayer and

zakdt as meaning those who do not fulfill either of these two

duties. 1"8

A certain legal use of the Jabir tradition is inherent in the

referenceof one variantof it to Qur'an LXXXVIII:21-2 according

to which the Prophet is told that he is merely a reminder (mudhakkir)

and not a forceful ruler (musaylir) except for those who turn away

and disbelieve. This variant was reported from Jabir by the link:

Thawr1 - Abii al-Zubayr al-Makki (d. 126/743), but does not

occur when Abui al-Zubayr is reported by Ibn Jurayj. Note also that

such reference to the scripture is absent from another variant of

Jabir's tradition reported by the link: al-Acmash Abu- Sufyan,

though this variant was cited already by the early Abfi Yfisuf in the

context of the Prophet's blame against Usama b. Zayd for killing

certain people who professed the shahdda."19

The gradual rise of the concept of zakdtand its institution as an

integral part of Muslim creed is reflected in a series of statements

attributed to figures from early Islam and usually cited without the

context of the riddawars. One such statement was cited already by

Abiu Yuisuf who attributes it to Ibn Masci'd without isndd (using the

phrase: "balaghanT can"). According to it, Ibn Masci'd said:

"anyone who holds out the zakdt is not a Muslim and if he does not

pay it he has no (accepted) prayer" (ma-manicu l-zakdti bi-muslim,

116 Al-Busti, II, 11.

117 Abfu al-Fadl Salih (d. 266/879), Masa'il al-ImamAhmadb. Hanbal, Delhi1988, II, 252.

118 Ibn CAbdal-Barr (d. 463/879), al-Tamhid,Rabat 1974, IV, 231.119 Cf. Abfi Yuisuf, p. 180; Muslim, I, 39; Ibn Maja, II, 1295; Ibn Manda, I,

166-9; Tammam al-Razi, I, 84-6; Bayhaqi, Shucab,I, 38-9.



ZAKAT 11

wa-man lam yu'addiha fa-ld saldta lahu). To this Abu- Yuisuf

immediately adds, albeit also without isndd, part of the report

according to which Aba Bakr threatened to wage a holy war (jihdd)

against people who abstain from paying even a camel's rope, etc.'20

Two other early sources, Abui cUbayd (d. 224/838) and Ibn Abi

Shayba (d. 235/849), cite a similar statement attributed to Ibn

Masctid by the link: Abut Ishaq al-SabilC (cAmr b. cAbd Allah, d.

126-9/743-6) - Abiu al-Ahwas (cAwf b. Malik b. Nadla, d. ca.

80/688). Note however that when the reporter from Abui Ishaq is

not his grandson Isradil (d. 160-2/776-8), but Sufyan (al-Thawri ?)

then the isnadof it ends with Abut al-Ahwas, i.e. it is not attributed

to Ibn Mascuid.l21

Another expression of the gradual rise of the obligatory nature

of zakdt, is a statement reported from the Sixth Shici Imam, Jacfar

al-Sadiq (d. 148/765) which says that whoever holds out one qfrl.t

of the zakdt is neither a mu'min (believer) nor a muslim.122 Another

Shici source associates the name of cAll through a family tradition

of al-Sadiq (can dba'ihi) with a prophetical saying that zakat is the

arch (qantara)of Islam.'23 Note, however, that almost the same say-

ing was attributed to the Prophet through Abui al-Dardad,'24 as well

as reported as Qatada's own statement in reference to Qur'an

XLI:7.'25 From the group of other statements in which al-Sadiq

urged people to pay zakdt, note especially the one in which he saysthat anyone who holds out may as well die as a Jew or a Chris-

tian.'26 Finally, to Kister's observation that the main reasoning

behind the Shici position concerning the controversy over the pay-

ment of zakdt to Abui Bakr and subsequent Muslim rulers was that

the legal authority after the Prophet passed to the Shfic Imams,'27

must be added a parallel debate which seems to have prevailed

among Sunni scholars of the early second century around the ques-

120 AbuiYuisuf,p. 80.121 Abii 'Ubayd, Kitabal-Amwdl,Cairo 1353/1934, pp. 354-5; Ibn Abi Shayba,

III, 114.122 Majlisi, XCIII, 11, quoting Qummi's Tafstr.123 Majlisi, XCIII, 15, quoting Tiisi's Amadlf124 Bayhaqi, Shucab, III, 195-6.125 'Abd al-Razzaq, Tafsfr,125(b).126 Majlisl, XCIII, 20. For other statements by al-$adiq, see also Majlisi,

XCIII, 18-22, 29; and Tu-si's(d. 460/1067), Amdli,Najaf 1965, II, 304-5.127 Kister, p. 40, n. 22.



112 SULIMAN BASHEAR

tion whether zakdt should be paid to the ruler irrespective of his per-

sonal conduct of the view concerning the legitimacy of his rule.'28

* * *

To recapitulate, the enquiry conducted above shows that, as

presented by Arabic lexical sources, the word zakdt conveys the

sense of a payment due on property in order to purify it and, hence,

cause for it to be blessed and multiply. A cross-examination of

cognate words from most of the languages current in the area in

pre-Islamic times, shows that the meanings of purification and

examption of taxes were the main ones conveyed by them. There

is even enough evidence for a use in the sense of being not guilty

in Phoenician, Syriac, Imperial Aramaic as well as in certain Old

Testament and Talmudic occurrences parallel to the notion, over-

whelmingly attested in the Qur'an and other Muslim sources that

zakdt (sadaqa)was paid to the Prophet by sinners in return for his

prayer and supplication so that they may be purified. While such

evidence does not allow for pointing to zakdt as a loan word from

Judaism, Christianity or any other religious culture in particular,

and though no affinity between it and any other Semitic cognate

word was explicitly recognized or even hinted at in the Muslim

sources, note must be made of the fact that the order to pay zakdtin several Qur)anic verses, like II:43 and 110, comes in contexts

where the Children of Israel were the ones addressed by it. There

is also a strong exegetical current which presents Qur'an IX:34 as

referring to "the People of Scripture". We have also seen that these

two facts basically did not cause embarrassment to early Muslim

scholars.

The notion that zakdt in its pre-institutional phase in early Islam

was applied as a payment aimed to purify sinners is predominant

in the narrative exagesis on Qur'an IX: 103, though there is a wide

disagreement concerning the actual "historical" occasion of its

revelation and the people involved. In any case, the perception that

it was an exclusive role of the Prophet to perform the purificationprayer on behalf of the paying sinners was behind the reported

128 This is clear fromn the list of Successors quoted by Ibn Abi Shayba asholding the view thatzakdtshould be paid to the rulers in any case (manqdlatudfa'ul-zakdtuildI-sultdnt)as against those who gave a concession (rukhsa)for not payingit in certain cases. Ibn Abi Shayba, III, 156-8.



ZAKAT 113

refusal of certain tribes to comply with the same order under Abui

Bakr. To this traditional core, the information that 'Umar

intervenedon behalf of the rebels was added a notion which occurs

in a certain currentof interpreting Qur'an IX:34 as well. However,

our investigation reveals that other second century elaborations

were also made in the form of traditions bearing the names ofJabir,

Anas, Ibn cUmar and others which aimed at establishing the pay-

ment of zakatas one of the criteria for defining who is a Muslim

upon whom war should not be waged, and did not originally stem

from the core of reports on actual cases of refusal to pay zakdt

during the riddawars.

Jerusalem

Documents

On the Origins & Development of the Meaning of Zakat Suliman Bashear