al-Jarrār; he names nothing beyond the four staple kinds, and he nowhere mentions maize at all. In 2/43 he also states that the aggregate of the hadiths transmitted about those four is strong enough to act upon, exactly as we have shown in our commentary on al-Muntaqā.

All of this relates to our first observation.

Second: Assigning maize to the school of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī is an error, for sound reports from him establish that he regarded the tithe as due only on …—he listed the four staples alone. This was recorded by Abū ʿUbayd 469/1379-1380 and by Ibn Zanjawayh 1030/1899 with authentic isnāds from him.

Third: The author’s statement, “for there is no text concerning anything else,” implies that the fifth category—maize—does, in fact, rest on a proof worthy of consideration. You already know its real standing, and to add further clarity I say: the view of al-Ḥasan just cited is the one that ought to be adopted, because it accords with the sound hadith. I had hoped the author would direct the reader’s attention to it, lest he be bewildered by the profusion of divergent opinions set out in this chapter. I also wished he had quoted for them the words of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, related by Abū ʿUbayd 469/1378 with an authentic chain regarding zakāt on fruit and grain, wherein he said:

“Whatever is date-palm, grape-vine, wheat, or barley.”

This yields additional reassurance as to the soundness of his view—may Allah be pleased with him. For this reason Abū ʿUbayd and Ibn Zanjawayh declared in their respective works:

“What we choose in this matter is to follow the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and to cling to it: that no—”