the practice of hoarding and allowing the wealthy to put their capital into circulation and trade with it is more beneficial to society—including its poor—than locking it away in vaults, even if they were to pay its zakat. Economists are perhaps better positioned to recognize this than anyone else. Allah alone grants success.

As for the narration the author cites concerning zakat on trade goods from ʿUmar, it is weak, because both Abū ʿAmr b. Ḥimās and his father are unknown, as Ibn Ḥazm stated. Ibn Ḥibbān’s declaration of reliability for the father does not remedy the weakness, for we have repeatedly pointed out that Ibn Ḥibbān is overly lenient in this regard; al-Ḥāfiẓ therefore did not rely on his judgment and explicitly ruled in Bulūgh al-Marām that the isnād is feeble.

The author then quotes al-Mughnī saying, ‘This is a story of the sort that would normally be widely circulated; since no one has denied it, it amounts to consensus.’

We reply: first establish the throne, then decorate it! Even if the story were sound, it contains nothing that proves consensus. Ibn Rushd makes this clear after mentioning that incident and the earlier statement of Ibn ʿUmar:

‘No Companion is known to have differed with them, and some regard this as a consensus of the Companions—that is, when a view is reported from one of them and no contrary view is known from anyone else—but this is open to objection.’

I say: and the disagreement I have just explained above confirms that very point.

The author also writes under “Zakat on crops”: ‘Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and al-Shaʿbī held that zakat is due only on wheat, barley, millet, dates, and raisins, because there is no textual proof concerning anything else; al-Shawkānī deemed this the correct position.’

I say: this is indeed the view to which we should hold fast, for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Abū Mūsā and Muʿādh when he dispatched them to Yemen: