and a man’s early acceptance of Islam, and a man’s need.” He therefore gave priority in stipends on these grounds, and his practice was to award larger stipends according to religious merit. Abū Bakr al-Siddīq, may Allah be pleased with him, however, gave equal stipends to those whose needs were equal, even if some were superior to others in religious merit.

He said:
“They embraced Islam for Allah’s sake, and their reward rests with Allah. These worldly goods are merely a means of subsistence.”

It is also reported that he said:
“They are equal in their faith”—meaning that their need for worldly goods is the same—“so I give to them on that basis, not because of their early acceptance of Islam or religious merit, for their reward remains with Allah.” Thus, when their worldly needs were equal, he gave them equal stipends.

It is reported that, towards the end of his life, ‘Umar said:
“If I live until next year, I shall certainly put everyone on an equal footing.”

That is, one māya; in other words, a single category.

His preference in allocating stipends rested on the four grounds he mentioned:

“A man’s proven service”: this refers to someone who strives in fighting the enemy. “A man’s contribution”: this refers to someone who serves the Muslims’ interests—their rulers, teachers, and others like them. “A man’s early acceptance of Islam”: this refers to someone who was among the earliest Muslims, for he awarded them larger stipends than others. “A man’s poverty”: he gave priority to the poor over the wealthy.

This is clear: when there are people in need, how could some of them be denied a share while it is given to a wealthy person who has no need and provides no benefit? This is especially so when the public treasury’s funds are insufficient to provide for all Muslims, rich and poor alike. How, then, can it be permissible to give to a wealthy person who