he said:

“There is no zakat on pearls, emeralds, rubies, gem-settings, personal effects, or anything that is not turned over—that is, not traded. But if any of those items are turned over, then zakat is due on its sale-price when it is sold.”

ʿAbd al-Razzāq recorded it (4/84/7061), as did Ibn Abī Shaybah (3/144), and its chain is exceptionally sound.

The key phrase is his words, “then zakat is due on its sale-price when it is sold.” He mentioned no appraisal, no nisab, and no completion of a lunar year. This alone refutes al-Baghawī’s assertion in Sharḥ al-Sunnah (6/53) that there is consensus on the obligation of zakat in the value of trade goods once they reach the nisab at the end of the year, claiming that only Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī dissented.

What further invalidates that claim is that Abū ʿUbayd—may Allah have mercy on him—reports in his work al-Amwāl (427/1193) that “some jurists” held there is no zakat on trade capital. It is highly improbable that by “some” he meant Dāwūd himself, for at the time of Abū ʿUbayd’s death Dāwūd was twenty-four years old, or younger, and a man of that age would scarcely have earned the scholarly renown that would lead an authority like Abū ʿUbayd (d. 224 AH) to cite his dissent. Dāwūd was born in 200 or 202 AH—consider that.

More plausibly, Abū ʿUbayd intended by “some” ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, for Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh narrated:

“ʿAṭāʾ was asked: A merchant possesses considerable wealth in various goods and the time for his zakat has arrived. Must he appraise his merchandise at what he thinks it would fetch and then pay zakat on it? He replied, ‘No. Whatever is gold or silver, he pays its zakat, and whatever is merchandise, he pays zakat on it when he sells it.’”

Ibn Zanjuyah recorded this in his al-Amwāl (3/946/1703) with a good chain.