a tenth of what remains, as though he considers that the owner cannot make a binding division on the collector’s behalf.

Abū Ishāq al-Tūnisī gave his own view: “If he brought it into his house assuming liability for the zakat and intending to make use of his property, then he is plainly liable if it is lost and must pay the zakat. But if he feared for it on the threshing floor and brought it into his house for safekeeping, and it was then lost, he bears no liability.”

What Abū Ishāq has said is sound and admits of no disagreement. The disagreement arises only when it is not known which of these two intentions he had when bringing it into his house. In one statement, Mālik—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—presumed that he had assumed liability and therefore held him liable, not accepting his claim that he had acted out of concern for its preservation and had brought it into his house for safekeeping. In another, he accepted that this was indeed his intention, so the grain was held by him in trust, and he therefore absolved him of liability.

This is my understanding of this question, whose treatment in the book is difficult to unravel. I attended a debate about it before our teacher, the jurist Abū Jaʿfar—may Allah Most High have mercy on him. We disputed it vigorously in his presence and differed widely in our interpretations of its various aspects. The discussion grew lengthy, with much disputation and argument, but I did not ascertain the teacher’s position—may Allah bestow His mercy and good pleasure upon him—on all the ramifications of the question. What I have written here is my own position on this subject. I ask Allah, by His might, for help and guidance to what is right; He has no partner.