Tamam al-MinnahNasir al-Din al-Albani

The report that follows, transmitted from Makḥūl, is likewise mursal. Abū ʿUbayd recorded it under no. 1453, and its transmitters are reliable.

Under the heading “Zakāt on Honey” the author says: “Al-Bukhārī stated, ‘Nothing authentic has been established regarding zakāt on honey.’”

I say: This cannot be taken as an absolute verdict, for several ḥadiths have been narrated on the subject. The soundest of them is the ḥadith of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb—from his father, from his grandfather—and the strongest chain to him is the route of ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith al-Miṣrī from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, in the wording:

“Hilāl, one of the Banū Mutʿān, came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ with the tithe from his beehives. He had earlier asked the Prophet to reserve for him a valley called Salabah, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ granted him that protected pasture (ḥimā). When ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb later assumed office, Sufyān ibn Wahb wrote to ask him about the matter. ʿUmar replied: ‘If he continues to give you what he used to give the Messenger of Allah ﷺ of the tithe on his bees, then keep Salabah protected for him; otherwise it is nothing but the buzzing of rain-flies—anyone who wishes may benefit from it.’”

This isnād is good; I have documented it in al-Irwāʾ, no. 810. Al-Ḥāfiẓ strengthened it in Fatḥ al-Bārī (3/348), where he said: “Its chain is sound up to ʿAmr, and the biographical profile of ʿAmr is strong according to the preferred view. In the absence of conflicting evidence, however, the report must be understood as a quid pro quo for the protected pasture, as ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s letter indicates.”

Ibn Zanjūyah had already advanced this interpretation in al-Amwāl (1095–1096), followed by al-Khaṭṭābī in Maʿālim al-Sunan (1/208). This appears to be the correct view, and Allah—glorified and exalted—is most knowing.

Because the issue is delicate both in ḥadith criticism and in jurisprudence, al-Shawkānī’s position fluctuated: in Nayl al-Awṭār (4/125) he concluded that zakāt is not obligatory on honey and declared all the related ḥadiths defective, whereas

والأثر الذي بعده عن مكحول مرسل أيضا. رواه أبو عبيد ١٤٥٣ ورجاله ثقات. قوله تحت عنوان: زكاة العسل: "قال البخاري: ليس في زكاة العسل شيء يصح". أقول: ليس هذا على إطلاقه فقد روي فيه أحاديث أحسنها حديث عمرو ابن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده وأصح طرقه إليه طريق عمرو بن الحارث المصري عن عمرو بن شعيب ... بلفظ: "جاء هلال أحد بني متعان إلى رسول الله ﷺ بعشور نحل له وكان سأله أن يحمي له واديا يقال له: سلبته فحمى له رسول الله ﷺ ذلك الوادي فلما ولي عمر بن الخطاب كتب سفيان بن وهب إلى عمر يسأله عن ذلك فكتب عمر: إن أدى إليك ما كان يؤدي إلى رسول الله ﷺ من عشور نحله فاحم له سلبته وإلا فإنما هو ذباب غيث يأكله من يشاء". قلت: وهذا إسناد جيد وهو مخرج في "الإرواء" رقم ٨١٠ وقواه الحافظ في "الفتح" فإنه قال عقبه ٣ / ٣٤٨: "وإسناده صحيح إلى عمرو وترجمة عمرو قوية على المختار لكن حيث لا تعارض إلا أنه محمول على أنه في مقابلة الحمى كما يدل عليه كتاب عمر ابن الخطاب". وسبقه إلى هذا الحمل ابن زنجويه في "الأموال" ١٠٩٥ - ١٠٩٦ ثم الخطابي في "معالم السنن" ١ / ٢٠٨ وهو الظاهر والله ﷾ أعلم. ولدقة المسألة حديثيا وفقهيا اضطرب فيه رأي الشوكاني فذهب في "نيل الأوطار" ٤ / ١٢٥ إلى عدم وجوب الزكاة على العسل وأعل أحاديثه كلها وأما

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies