(1) Al-Muwatta, 1/251. (2) This report should serve as a basis for principles governing debate. Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: “There is no harm in wearing jewelry if its zakat (obligatory alms) is paid.” (1) This indicates that zakat must be paid. However, Malik narrated in Al-Muwatta, through a sounder chain, from Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim, from his father, from Aishah: “She used to care for her orphaned nieces under her guardianship, who possessed jewelry, yet she did not pay zakat on their jewelry.” Had she held it to be obligatory, she would have paid it, since a guardian is required to pay zakat on behalf of those under his guardianship. Hence the scholars said: “The guardian pays zakat on behalf of the insane person and the child.” Ibn Hajar said in Talkhis al-Habir fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Rafii al-Kabir—a fine and valuable work, equal or nearly equal to al-Zaylai’s Nasb al-Rayah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Hidayah; both are good works on the subject: “The two reports may be reconciled by saying that she held zakat to be due on jewelry, but did not hold that zakat was to be paid at all from the property of orphans.” This is based on the view that legal maturity and soundness of mind are conditions for zakat to become obligatory, as maintained by Abu Hanifah. Since orphans have not reached maturity, she would not, on this basis, pay zakat from the property of the orphans in her care, because she did not consider zakat obligatory upon a minor. This answer is undoubtedly sound; however, it is challenged by what Malik narrated in Al-Muwatta from Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim, from his father, who said: “Aishah cared for my maternal uncle and me as two orphans under her guardianship, and she paid zakat from our property.” This indicates that she held zakat to be obligatory on the property of orphans and did not consider maturity and soundness of mind to be conditions for its obligation. Some replied that she did not regard payment of zakat from their property—that is, the property of the orphans—as obligatory; thus, she would pay it on some occasions and not on others. Such was their response. This answer is questionable, for if she did not regard payment of zakat as obligatory, it would not have been permissible for her to pay it from their property. If it were voluntary, then voluntary charity may not be given from the property of orphans, since it is a donation, and a guardian has no right to donate from the property of one under his guardianship. For this reason, a distinction is made between the permissibility of making a donation and the permissibility of managing property: the former is more restricted. Whoever may make donations may also manage property, but not vice versa. A guardian may manage the property of his ward, but may not donate from it. A better answer is that her not paying it was an action, and an action has no general import. This is sometimes described as a particular case. Since it was an action, there may have been reasons that she regarded as preventing zakat from becoming obligatory. For example, they may have been in debt, and debt, according to some scholars, prevents zakat from being obligatory. Or perhaps she paid it discreetly, without anyone becoming aware of it. In short, an action has no general import.