the issue and removes the ambiguity, since Ashhab’s report would then stand independently, disconnected from what precedes it and consistent with his known position and his report from Mālik. The report of Ibn al-Qāsim, ‘Alī ibn Ziyād and Ibn Nāfi‘ would then concern gold and silver jewelry without gemstones.
As for the other reading, which omits “he pays zakat on it” and retains “along with them,” some scholars have said that it is an erroneous transmission whose wording cannot be reconciled with the established principles. Upon examination, its wording implies, contrary to those principles, that zakat becomes due on goods held for non-commercial purposes at the moment of sale, because it says, “No zakat is due from him until he sells it.” Yet the report addresses both purchased and inherited jewelry set with gemstones, and gemstones are merchandise. There is no disagreement that, when inherited, they are not subject to zakat until a year has elapsed over their proceeds after receipt.
Others have said that the meaning is as follows: when he sells jewelry set with gemstones that he inherited, he pays zakat on the portion of the price attributable to the gold, while a new year begins for the portion attributable to the gemstones from the day he receives it. If he acquired it by purchase, he pays zakat on the entire proceeds when he sells it, whether or not he regularly turns over his stock. This is Ibn Lubāba’s interpretation. On this interpretation, the book contains three opinions concerning jewelry set with gemstones.
Others have said that the report means that a trader who regularly turns over his stock assesses its value, as in Ashhab’s report. On this understanding, the book contains two opinions from Mālik.
Still others have said that it means that a trader who regularly turns over his stock assesses its value, and that Ibn al-Qāsim’s earlier discussion of traders who regularly turn over their stock and those who do not concerns jewelry that is not set with gemstones. They hold that Ibn al-Qāsim’s report from Mālik in al-Mudawwana concerning jewelry set with gemstones indicates the same position as that transmitted from Mālik by Ashhab. This interpretation thus recognizes no disagreement concerning jewelry set with gemstones. All these interpretations are strained, and this last is the most far-fetched.
The correct interpretation of the report in question, when “he pays zakat on it” is omitted and “along with them” is retained, is that Mālik’s answer as transmitted by Ibn al-Qāsim, ‘Alī ibn Ziyād and Ibn Nāfi‘ is contained in the statement: “If it is not set with gemstones, it is treated as gold and silver money: he pays zakat on it every year.” His answer as transmitted by Ashhab is contained in the statement: “No zakat is due from him on it until he sells it.” Ashhab alone, without the others, transmitted Mālik’s ruling concerning jewelry set with gemstones, while they, without Ashhab, transmitted his ruling concerning jewelry not set with gemstones. The ambiguity arose in the report because the narrator grouped them together in