that if all the grain is lost on the threshing floor while he is processing it, he bears no liability, since he has not been negligent. Mālik’s statements differ concerning grain that a man brings into his house and subsequently loses without negligence: either it is lost shortly after he brings it inside, having had no opportunity to give it to the poor beforehand, or its distribution is not his responsibility and he awaits the zakat collector, however long the wait. In one statement, Mālik distinguished it from dinars and held him liable; in another, he treated it like dinars and imposed no liability.
The same applies if he sets aside the tenth to distribute it, where distribution is his responsibility, or to await the zakat collector, where it is not, and it is then lost after he brings it into his house without negligence. This may mean that it is lost shortly after he brings it inside, where distribution is his responsibility, or that distribution is not his responsibility and it is lost, sooner or later, while he awaits the collector. Mālik’s statements also differ here, just as in the first case: in one, he treated it like money; in another, he treated it differently.
Ibn al-Qāsim said that if he has called witnesses and distribution is not his responsibility, he bears no liability, even if the collector is delayed. According to Ibn al-Qāsim, it makes no difference whether the loss affects the tenth that he set aside and brought into his house, or all the grain that he brought into his house without setting any of it aside. In either case, he bears no liability so long as he remains awaiting the collector, provided he has called witnesses. Ibn al-Qāsim’s position differs from both of Mālik’s positions on this point.
Consider, however, Ibn al-Qāsim’s position concerning someone whom the zakat collector does not visit and who is responsible for distributing his own zakat. If he brings all the grain, or its separately designated tenth, into his house and it is lost shortly afterwards without negligence, does Ibn al-Qāsim treat it like money, so that liability lapses, or does he treat it differently, making him liable unless he calls witnesses? What appears more consistent with his position, in my view, is that he bears no liability even if he has not called witnesses.
Al-Makhzūmī’s position in this chapter agrees with one of Mālik’s two positions: he bears no liability even if he has not called witnesses, because he has not been negligent in awaiting the collector and is required to do no more than he has done. According to al-Makhzūmī, the same applies if he is responsible for distributing his own zakat and the grain is lost shortly after he brings it into his house, without negligence.
If, however, he fails to safeguard it or is negligent until it is lost, there is agreement that he is liable. This applies whether or not he brought it into his house; whether all of it or only its tenth was lost; whether or not that tenth had been set aside; and whether he was responsible for distributing it himself or was among those whom the collector visits.
Where a man sets aside its tenth and it is lost without negligence, Ashhab distinguishes between distribution being the owner’s responsibility and its being the collector’s. He held that if the owner is responsible for distributing his zakat, he bears no liability, just as with money. If it is the collector’s responsibility, however, the loss is borne by both of them, and the collector is entitled to take