2QWKH2ULJLQVDQG'HYHORSPHQWRIWKH0HDQLQJRI]DNÃWLQ(DUO\,VODP

$XWKRUV6XOLPDQ%DVKHDU
6RXUFH$UDELFD7)DVF0DUSS
3XEOLVKHGE\BRILL
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057202 .
$FFHVVHG

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Arabica.

http://www.jstor.org
 ON THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
MEANING OF ZAKAT IN EARLY ISLAM

BY

SULIMAN BASHEAR

Introduction
HE INFORMATION provided by Muslim sources on zakdtlsadaqa
(poor-tax/rate, almsgiving), which eventually emerged as one
of the "pillars" (arkdn) of classical Islam, has been outlined by
modern scholars. While the voluntary vs. obligatory nature of
zakdtlsadaqaand their interchangeable occurrence in these sources
were considered, it has also been noted that, in the time of the
Prophet, these were still vague regulations and did not represent
taxes demanded by religion. Widely circulated reports concerning
the refusal of certain Bedouin tribes to pay zakdt after the Prophet's
death as they considered their agreements with him cancelled by
that, as well as 'Umar's inclination to agree with this, and the fact
that only Abuf Bakr made it a permanent institution, were brought
in support of such an assessment.'
The basic difference between sadaqa, which was primarily applied
to the supererogatory, and the obligatory nature of zakdt, has also
been noted.2 And the eventual emergence of alms as an obligatory
duty in Islam led one scholar, H. Grimme, to the suggestion that
Muhammad "should be treated as a social rather than a religious
reformer. "3 R. Bell, in turn, gave weight to the fact that the order
to pay zakdt occurs in "Meccan passages" of the Qur'an and noted
that such occurrence comes "only in the sense of alms and volun-
tary giving to the poor, as much for the purification of the giver's

1
J. Schacht, s.v. "Zakat" in Encyclopaediaof Islam, first edition, IV, 1202-4;
H.A.R. Gibb andJ. Kramers, eds., Shorter Encyclopaediaof Islam, Leiden 1974, pp.
654-5, and the sources cited therein.
2 E. Lane, Arabic-EnglishLexicon,repr. Beirut 1980, IV, p. 1668.
3 H. Grimme, Mohammed, Miunster 1892, quoted by Tor Andrae, Mohammed,
theMan and His Faith, London 1936, pp. 101-2; and R. Bell, The Originof Islam
in its ChristianEnvironment,
London 1926, p. 79.

Arabica,tome XL, 1993

 ZAKAT 85

soul as for relief of the needy. "4 Concerning the institution of zakdt,
which is nowhere regulated, J. Schacht cautiously pointed to the
fact that Muslim sources place it in Medina between the years 2 and
9 A. H., while R. Bell sounds more confident when saying that "its
beginning belongs to the first year or two in Medina and was
motivated by the circumstances of the poorer Muhajiriun and
necessities of the state. "5
Scholars also disagreed concerning the similarity between and
possible origins of zakdt and sadaqain parallel institutions and
cognate words from the vocabulary of other religions in the area.
R. Bell held that "the word zakdtis Syriac and therefore Chris-
tian", but J. Schacht and others expressed the view that it was bor-
rowed fromJewish usage of Hebrew-Aramaiczdktt.6 And the same
was held concerning sadaqaas a transliterationof the Hebrew seddka
which originally meant "honesty". We are also told that, as
applied by the Pharisees for what they considered the chief duty of
the pious Israelites, namely almsgiving, the proper sense of this
word, which is voluntary or spontaneous "charity", was still
retained at the time of the coming of Islam and elsewhere.7 One
scholar, H.P. Smith, held that Muslim tazkiyain the sense of
purification of property corresponds to a similar notion expressed
in Deuteronomy 14:28, though, later, zakdtemerged as a regular tax
of the Muslim State.8 C.C. Torrey, in turn, expressed the view that
zakdtand sadaqaare loan words from the North Semitic languages,
corresponding in particular to Aramaic zakuitand sidakta and
Hebrew sidaka, respectively. The Aramaic words, he held,
originally meant "purity" and were used by both Jews and Chris-
tians in the sense of "virtuous conduct". To this he added the view
that "the latter term (sidakta)was widely used in Aramaic speech
to mean alms."9

4 R. Bell, Introduction to the Qur'dn, Edinburgh 1953, p. 166. Cf. also M.

Hudgson, The Venture of Islam, Chicago 1974, p. 181.
5 J. Schacht, p. 1203; R. Bell, ibid.
6 J. Schacht, p. 1202; H.A.R. Gibb andJ.H. Kramers, p. 654. Compare, how-
ever, with A. Jeffery, ForeignVocabulary of theQur'dn,Baroda 1938, p. 153, where
it is stated that neither of the Aramaic or Syriac cognates seem to have ever meant
alms, though this meaning could easily be derived from them.
7 H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, ibid.

8 H.P. Smith, The Bible and Islam, N.Y. 1897, p. 313.

9 C.C. Torrey, TheJewish Foundationof Islam, N.Y. 1933, p. 141.
86 SULIMAN BASHEAR

For all the investigation of the origins and development of zakdt

in early Islam, the subject is far from being satisfactorily concluded.
In an attempt to contribute to it, we propose to open with a closer
examination of the material provided by Arabic lexical sources as
well as a comparative enquiry into cognates from other Semitic
languages. This, we hope, will help to elucidate some of the parallel
aspects of this institution which existed in other religious cultures
and in early Islam. In order to follow the possible continuity of such
legacy and the development of the Muslim institution of zakdt, a
closer examination of the Qur'anic material on it will also be con-
ducted. Special attention will be paid to Qur'an IX: 103 as well as
other scriptural instances which are believed by Muslim scholars to
have established the duty of zakdt in Islam. Besides the traditional
material on its nature, the circumstances of levying it and other
related issues, we shall also examine the Halakhic aspects of the
above-mentioned positions associated with the names of Abuf Bakr,
'Umar I and other early Muslim figures. However, one thing must
be made clear at the outset. The present study is an enquiry into
the initial religious meaning of the concept of zakdt and not into the
views concerning the varying amounts and portions out of the dif-
ferent properties from which it was levied.

Lexical and ScripturalIndications to a Pre-Islamic Legacy

Arabic lexical and other sources point to several meanings given
to abstract nouns derived from the root ZKA/I/W. Zaka' was inter-
preted by al-Khalil b. Ahmad as growth and increase, especially if
applied in reference to planting (zarc); a notion reiterated by several
later sources.10 Ibn Durayd adds to this the meaning of a tax (itcP)
levied by God upon the crops (ma yukhrijuhu l-lahu tacdld mina 1-
thamar)."IAs for zakat, one of the meanings given by al-Khalil and
Azhari is saldh in the sense of validity.'2 From Jawhari one can

10 Al-Khalil b. Ahmad (d. 175/791), Kitabal-cAyn,Baghdad 1982, V, 394; Ibn

Durayd (d. 321/933, KitabJamharatal-Lugha, Haydarabad 1345/1926, III, 17;
Azhari (d. 370/980), Tahdhfbal-Lugha,Cairo 1964, X, 319-20, quoting Ibn al-
Anbdrd;Ibn Faris (d. 395/1004), Mu5jamMaqdytsal-Lugha,Cairo 1368/1948, III,
17; Jawhari, Taj al-Lughawa-Sihdhal-cArabiyya,
Cairo 1282/1865, II, 482. Cf. also
Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889), G/arib al-Hadfth,Beiruth 1988, I, 25; Sarakhsi, al-
Mabsiz, Cairo 1324/1906, II, 149.
l Ibn Durayd, ibid.
12 Al-Khalil, V, 394; Azhari, X, 319.
 ZAKAT 87

gauge the difficulty of philologically relating zakdtto the second

stem, zakkd. For, the abstract noun which he gives for paying zakdt
is tazkiyawich he notes can also denote praise. One notes also that
he adds the meaning of charity associated with the fifth stem,
tazakkdwhich he equates with tasaddaqa.13
The other meaning given by al-Khalil, his contemporary, al-
Layth b. Sa'd (d. 175/791) and later lexicographers for zakdt is
"purification" (tath&r).From the usual wording of such an inter-
pretation, however, one feels that zakdt in this sense is applied
exclusively to whatever is levied on property (wa-l-zakdtu zakdtu 1-
mdli wa-huwa tathiruhulwa-yuqdlu:al-taharatuzakdtu l-mdli).'4 Azhari,
Ibn Faris and Jawhari try to harmonize the main two meanings by
saying that purifying the property causes it to grow and increase.
One also notes that behind such morally inclined reasoning by Ibn
Faris and Jawhari stands Qur-an IX: 103 which orders the Prophet
to levy a sadaqa on properties for the aim of purification using the
phrase tutahhiruhumltutahhirhum wa-tuzakkdhimbiha.'5 And Sarakhsi
in particular clearly reflects the main current in Qur'anic exegesis
when he says that zakdt is called as such because,accordingto Qur'dn
IX 103, it purifies its payerfrom sins (li-annaha tujahhirusahibaha Cani
l-dtham).16
Against this background, it will be interesting to examine the
meanings given to cognates from some Semitic languages. A quick
glance at words derived from the roots ZKA/H/I/W in all these
languages as well as in Sumerian, shows that they bear basically
two meanings: purity and exemption from the payment of taxes.
The word zakutu is originally Sumerian and reappears in Akkadian
texts in the senses of cancelling taxes due to the king and right being
granted by the king and relating to setting people free. Note that
in Akkadian in particular, this word occurs also in contexts of free-
ing people from acts and payments due to the gods."7

13 Jawhari, II, 489.

14
Al-Khalil, V, 394; Azhari, X, 319 quoting Layth; Ibn Faris, III, 17.
15
Ibn Faris, ibid.; Jawhari, II, 489.
16
Sarakhsi, II, 149. More on this verse, below.
17 W. Winefeld, Trial andJustice in Israel and Among the Peoples, Jerusalem 1985,

pp. 82-3, 167 (in Hebrew); K.H. Gordon, Before There Was the Bible, Tel-Aviv
1966, p. 36. For the comparative search into this as well as the other Semitic
languages throughout this section I was helped by 0. Ifrati to whom I owe a debt
of gratitude.
88 SULIMAN BASHEAR

From the root ZKH in Assyrian is derived the word zakuin the
senses of being pure, clean and shining as well as free from com-
mitments. Uzakkimeans to declare one free from commitments,
while zakutaoccurs in texts of the same language in the sense of:
being free from payment of tithes due to the gods, an agreement,
a judgement, a declarationof the independence of cities and regula-
tions and laws relating to land properties.18 And Uzakkiin Ugaritic
texts indicates freeing a town from works due to the king. 19Phoeni-
cian words derived from the roots ZK and ZKA are used in the
sense of "pure", while ZKI of the same language occurs also in the
senses of being not guilty and free of charge.20
The root ZKH in Gecez denotes purity,2"while in Tigre and
Gurage the word zakatmeans both a tax paid to the local chief and
a present.22In Amharic, however, words derived from the same
root denote food either begged for by poor students or given by rich
people to the poor and the priests.2" And a similar meaning, of
charity for the poor, as well as a tax, is derived from the Sabaean
root ZKW.24
The senses of being innocent, declared not guilty in court and
pure, are often born also by Syriac and Imperial Aramaic words
derived from the roots ZK/H/I/W. Besides, such words in Syriac
are used also in the senses of to be victorious, overcome, occupy
and rule by force.25 And the same can be noted about Hebrew

18
W. Muss-Arnolt, Assyrisch-Englisch-Deutsches Berlin 1986, I,
Handwdrterbuch,
277-9.
19 C.H. Gordon, UgariticManual,Part 3: Comprehensive
Glossary,Roma 1955, p.
261.
20 Cf. Z.S. Harris, A Grammar of thePhoenicianLanguage,Philadelphia 1936, p.
99; Ch.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dicti.onnaire des InscriptionsSernitiques
de l'ouest,
Leiden 1965, p. 76.
21 W. Leslau, Concise Dictionaryof Gecez,Wiesbaden 1987, p. 637.
22 W. Leslau, Etymological Dictionaryof Gurage,Wiesbaden 1979, III, 705; idem,
NorthEthiopicandAmharicCognatesin Tigre, Napoli 1982, p. 85.
23 W. Leslau, Concise AmharicDictionary,Wiesbaden 1976, p. 183.
24
A.F.L. Beeston, M.A. Ghul, W.W. Muller and J. Ryckmans, Dictionnaire
Sabeen(AnglaisFrancaisArabe), Beyrut 1982, p. 170; B.J. Copeland, Dictionaryof Old
SouthArabicSabaeanDialect, Chicago 1982, p. 159.
25 Cf. J. Payne Smith, ed., A Compendious SyriacDictionary,FoundedUpon the
ThesaurusSyriacusof R. PayneSmith,Oxford 1903, p. 115; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein,
A Syriac-EnglishGlossary,Based on Brockelmann's Syriac Chrestomathy, Wiesbaden
1970, p. 21; A.J. Darham, Darham'sDictionaryof theStabilizedandEnrichedAssyrian
Languageand English, Chicago 1943, p. 145; L.B. Costaz, DictionnaireSyriaque-
Francais,Syriac-English Dictionary,Beyrouth 1963, pp. 87-8; Ch.-F. Jean and J.
Hoftijzer, op. cit., p. 76.
 ZAKAT 89

cognates occurring in the Old Testament as well as Talmudic and

Midrashic Hebrew.26 Note also that the adjective zakay(from the
root ZKH) occurs in the Old Testament, Micah 11/6 in the sense
of one who is proved innocent when charged with cheating, while
in Psalms 76/13, 119/9, Proverbs20/9, Isaiah 16/1 and Daniel 23/6,
the senses conveyed are: being clean, morally clean and not
guilty.27And once in the Talmud, the same root is applied in the
senses both of payment of a monetary fine and an obligatory poor
tax.28
Against the background of such a rich pre-Islamic legacy, it is
interesting to note that a few of the Qur'anic verses which order to
perform prayer and give zakdt actually address the Children of
Israel. Such are the cases of Qur'an II:43, 83 and 110. And the fact
that these verses explicitly order the Jews to pay zakdtseems not to
have constituted any serious problem for Muslim scholars. In his
commentary on Qur'an II:110, the philologist Abui cUbayda (d.
210/825) for example, says only that the phrase "wa-dtul-zakdta"
means give it (ay aCtli)29. Qurtubi (d. 667/1268) does not comment
upon the fact that Qur'an II:43 addresses the Jews and only notes
that while most scholars understood it as meaning the usual zakat
ordained upon Muslims, Malik b. Anas (d. 179/795) was reported
as holding that rather the charitable alms given after breaking the
fast (sadaqatal-fitr)was the one meant.30 From another source we
learn that support to this latter view was reported also by Abiu
Ijayyan al-Taymi (Yahya b. Sacid b. Hayyan, Kafan d. 145/762)
from al-Harith al-CUkli (b. Yazid al-Taymi, death date
unknown).31
Two differentviews were associated with the name of Ibn cAbbas
concerning the phrase "wa- dtuil-zakdt" of Qur'an II:43. One,
through Muc'wiya b. Salih (Uims, d. 172/788) cAll b. Abi Talha
(al-Jazari who lived in Hims, d. 143/760), says that zakat here

26 A. Even-Shoshan, The New Dictionary,Jerusalem 1969, II, 670-72 (in

Hebrew); Y. Steinberg, TheBibleDictionary,HebrewandAramaic,Tel-Aviv 1960,

p. 205.
27 S. Radi, TheNew Dictionary of theBible,Jerusalem 1989, I, 132 (in Hebrew);
Y. Steinberg, The Bible Dictionary,HebrewandAramaic,Tel-Aviv 1960, p. 205.
28 The Babylonian
Talmud,Qiddushin27/(a).
29
Abu cUbayda, Majdzal-Qur'dn,Cairo 1988, I, 51.
30
Qurtubi, Tafsfr,Cairo n.d., I, 292.
31
Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327/938), Tafsir, Riyad 1408/1987, I, 150.
90 SULIMAN BASHEAR

means obedience and loyalty to God (IdCatul-ldhiwa-l-ikhl1&u lahu).32

However, through AbuiRawq ('Atiyya b. al-HIirith, Kiifan, death
date unknown) Dahhak (b. Muzahim, Khurasini, d. 102-6/720-4)
we learn that Ibn cAbbas held that the zakdtmeant here is the one
which God ordained the Children of Israel to give out of their pro-
perties. And one variant of this tradition explains that such an
order was a sunna different than the sunna of Muhammad, namely
that the former was a sacrifice which the Children of Israel used to
make and that a fire used to descend from heaven and carry it away
as a sign that it was accepted by God.33
Qatada (d. 117-8/735-6) and Hasan al-Basr1i(d. 110/728) are
reported to have held that zakdtin both Qur'an II:43 and 83 is an
ordinance exactly like the prayer (saldt)with which it was coupled
(faridatdniwajibatdn).34But this fact, which Mujahid (d. 102-3/720-
1) too was reportedly well aware of, I does not seem to have con-
stituted a problem for the exegetes or even most of the later com-
mentators. From both Muqatil b. Hayyan (d. 150/767) and
Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 150/767) we learn that at least Qur'an
11:43contains an order to the Jews/var., ahlal-kitabto pray with the
followers of Muhammad and to pay the latter zakdton their proper-
ties (amarahum anyu'ti 1-zakdtayadfaci'nahd Tabari,
ild n-nabiyyi(y)).36
who expresses a similar understanding of this verse, adds that,
hence, the Jews were ordered to submit to God and His Messenger,
i.e. Muhammad, as the Muslims did (wa-anyakhdaci7 li-l-ldhiwa-li-
kamdkhadaczi).3 Zamakhshariand Nasaff say only that they
rasuilihi
were ordered to perform the same prayer and pay the same zakdt
of the Muslims (yacnisaldtal-muslimfnawa-zakdtahum).38
The comments made by other late scholars are equally
interesting. Ibn cArabi (Abu Bakr, d. 543/1148) raises the
possibility that the Jews were ordered by Qur'an I:43 to pay the
same zakdt because it is known in all religions (wa-yuhtamaluan

32 Tabari (d. 310/922), Tafsfr,Cairo 1954, II, 297-8; Ibn Abi Hatim, ibid. Cf.

also Tabarsi (d. 548/1153), MajmaCal-Baydn,Beirut 1957, I, 337.

33 Tabarl, ibid.; Tabarsi, ibid.

34
Tabari, I, 572-3; Ibn Abi Hatim, I, 150, 259.
35 Mujahid, Tafsfr, Beirut n.d., I, 83.
36 Ibn Abi Hatim, I, 149-50; Muqatil b. Sulayman, Tafszr,Ms. Saray, Istan-

bul, III Ahmet, 74, I, 9(b), 16(a), 19(b).

37 Tabari, I, 572-3. Cf. also his II, 506 concerning Qur'an II:110.

38 Zamakhshari (d. 528/1133), al-Kashshdf, Cairo 1354/1935, I, 66/ Nasafi (d.

701/1301), Mad&irik al-TanzFl,Beirut n.d., I, 45.
 ZAKAT 91

yakiiniu umiruibi-z-zakdti li-annahd ma'liimatunJt kulli dinin mina 1-

adydn).39R5zi (d. 606/1209) and Baydlaw1(d. 685/1286) say that
addressing the Jews by this verse proves that Muslim religious laws
apply to unbelievers too (wa-dhdlikayadullu caldanna l-kuffaramukha/-
tabiiza bi-furiucish-shard)i).40 Qur'an II:83, however, means for
Baydawi that the prayer and zakdtmentioned there are the ones
ordained upon the Jews but only according to their religion (yuridu
mdfurida calayhimft millatihim), i.e. not the Muslim duties.41
Qur'an IX:33 warns the believers against most of the religious
leaders of Judaism and Christianity (al-ahbdrwa-l-ruhbdn)who
unjustly eat people's properties", etc.42To this, Qur'an IX: 34
adds a warning of severe torture against those who accumulate gold
and silver (wa-l-ladhTnayaknizi7nadh-dhahabawa-l-fiddata ...) and do
not spend it in the way of God. From the exegetical material on
these two verses one feels that the very reading of the conjunctive
waw" between them (in wa-l-ladhfna)was itself a matter of inter-
pretation as both verses were presented as referringto those who do
not pay zakdtfrom among the adherents of Judaism and Chris-
tianity as well as the Muslims. Moreover, some of the traditions
cited in reference to Qur'an IX:34 in particular, point to the
involvement of cUmar I on behalf of those who were rebuked by it
from among the followers of Muhammad, a notion which con-
stitutes part of such role which, as we shall see below, was strongly
associated with the name of cUmar.
To begin with, connecting this verse with the order to pay zakdt
was based on several propheticaltraditionswhich interpretkanz(lit.
treasure) as any property whose zakat is not payed (kullu md lam
tu'addazakituhufahuwa kanz). Such traditions were transmitted from
the Companions Ibn cUmar (through both Nafic, d. 117-20/735-7,
and cAtiyya, poss. al-cAwfi) and Ibn cAbbas (through cAli b. Abi
Talha) as well as reported from cIkrima(d. 104-7/722-5), Shacbi(d.
103-10/721-8), Hasan al-BasrI and Suddli (d. 127/744).43 Also

39 Ibn CArabi,Ahkim al-Qur'dn,Beirut 1972, I, 20-1.

40 Razi, Mafidthal-Ghayb,Cairo 1308/1890, I, 325; Baycdwi-,Anwdral-Tanzil,
Lipsiae, 1845, I, 56-7.
41 Bayd.awi, I, 70.
42
For the translation, see A.J. Arberry, TheKoranInterpreted,
London and N.Y.
1955, I, 211.
43 Tabari, XIV, 219, 225; Tabarsi, X, 53: Baghawl (d. 516/1122), Sharhal-
Sunna,Beirut 1983, V, 478; Suyiiti (d. 911/1505), al-Durral-Manthur,Beirut 1983,
92 SULIMAN BASHEAR

Muqatil held the same view." And from one source we learn that
the early fourth century al-JubbaiP(d. 303/915) said that on this
matter there was a consensus (yima).45
As for the question who were those referred to by this verse, two
main currents can be discerned. One says that it warned against the
Jewish ahbdrand Christian ruhbdn/var.,ahl-al-kitibwho did not pay
zakat,and the second held that it included the Muslims too because
of the conjunctive waw, as noted above. From a unique tradition,
one can gauge that this reading with waw aimed in the first place
at presenting the whole verse as referring to both ahl al-kitib and
Muslims. According to this tradition, cAlba' b. Ahmar, who was
a "reader" (qiri') of the Qur'an, active in early to mid-second cen-
tury Basra (exact death date unknown), said that when cUthman
b. cAffan ordered the canonical Codex to be written down people
wanted to omit the waw, but Ubayy objected and threatened to
fight for it and thus, it was retained.46
In spite of such "interpretative reading", to use J.
Wansbrough's terminology,47both cAbbas(through a family line of
cAtiyya al-cAwfi) and Dahhak are reported to have held that this
verse referred to both ahl al-kitaband Muslims.48Suddi, in turn, is
said to have held that the part of the verse which begins with "wa-l-
ladh/na"refers to the Muslims (lit., people of the qibla).49And cAta'
is said to have transmitted a view similar to this latter one from Ibn
cAbbas.50
A clear expression of the two conflicting currents over the
applicability of this verse comes in the form of a reported debate
between Mucawiya and Abu Dharr, a debate which is said to have
determined the personal future of the latter. According to one tradi-
tion, when asked by Zayd b. Wahb about the reason for which he
was banished to al-Rabadha, Abu Dharr explained that it was his

IV, 176-8. Cf. also Nasafi, II, 124. For a unique view reported from al-Baqir (d.
114-8/732-6), see al-Qummi (d. 326/939), Tafsir, Najaf 1386/1966, I, 289.
44 Muqitil, I, 153(a).
45 Tabarsi, X, 53.
46 Suyfii, Durr, IV, 178-9, quoting Ibn al-Dirris.
47 For the view that Qur'anic "reading" is
actually a matter of exegesis, see
his Qur'dnicStudies,Oxford 1977, p. 226.
48 Tabari, XIV, 225; WaIhidi(d. 468/1075), Asbalbal-Nuzzll,Beirut n.d., p. 184;
Suyuti, Durr, Iv, 178, quoting Abui al-Shaykh (d. 369/979).
49 Tabari, XIV, 219; Suyiati, Durr, IV, 179, quoting Ibn Abi Hatim;
Wihidi,
p. 183; Qurtubi, IV, 2963.
50 Wahidi, p. 184.
 ZAKAT 93

conflict with Mu'awiya over the applicabilityof Qur'an IX:34. We

specifically learn that when Abiu Dharr recited this verse, with its
warning against those who accumulated gold and silver from
among the Muslims (an implied reference to the Syrian governor,
Muc'wiya and his aristocraticUmayyad clan), Muc'wiya defended
himself by claiming that this verse was revealed only concerning
ahl-al-kitab.However, because AbuiDharr persisted in his criticism,
Muc'wiya complained to the Caliph, cUthman b. cAffan and the
latter banished the "rebellious Companion" to al-Rabadha. As for
the isnddof this tradition, we notice that its main reporter from
Zayd b. Wahb was Husayn b. cAbd al-Rahman (Kiifan, d.
136/753) from whom it was circulated in the late second century by
Warqa' (b. Umar, Kfifan, exact death date unknown), Hushaym
b. Bashir (Wasit, d. 183/799) and Ibn Idris (cAbd Allah ? , Kulfan,
d. 192/807).51
Tabarl cites a similar tradition of Abul Dharr albeit without the
element of Zayd's enquiry. It was reported in a maqti' form by Abiu
Bishr (Jacfar b. Abi Wahshiyya/b. Iyas, Wasiti, d. 123-31/740-8)
and circulated from the latter by the link: Ibn Idris Ashcath (b.
Sacid, Basran, d. ca. 150/767) and Hisham (unidentified).52From
Qurtubi we learn that the view associated with the name of
Muc'wiya was put forwardby as late as al-Asamm (Abuial-cAbbas,
d. 346/957) implying that unbelievers too are required to comply
with the orders of Muslim sharica.ssFinally, Nasafi only says that
the verse may have referred to either ahl al-kitabor the Muslims.54

An Act of Cleansingthe Guilt

Occasionally, other verses were also presented as urging repay-
ment of zakator invoked by traditions including such urging. These
traditions were associated with the names of Ibn Masci'd, Ibn
cAbbas, Abil Hurayra, Shacbi, al-Baqir and Suddi concerning the
phrase "al-ladhinayabkhalzina"of Qurlin III: 180.55 Other tradi-

51 Mujahid, Tafsfr,Beirut n.d., I, 277 (where Warqa"s tradition does not state
Mucawiya's name and says instead: "then, a man said ..."; Tabari, XIV, 227-8;
Qummi, I, 52 (where no isnad was provided); Wah.id!,p. 183; Qurtubi, IV, 2963.
52
Tabarl, ibid.
Qurtubi, IV, 2963.
54 Nasafi, II, 124.
55Ibn Maja (d. 275/888), Sunan, Cairo 1952, I, 568-9; Nasd'i (d. 303/915),
Sunan,Cairo 1987, V, 11-2; Tabarani (d. 360/970), al-Mu5jamal-Kabfr,Baghdad
94 SULIMAN BASHEAR

tions, associated with the names of 'All and Ibn 'Umar, interpret
the word "al-ma'un"of Qur'an CVII:7 as zakct and sadaqa.56And
similar isolated traditions connect Qur'an XLI: 7 and III:144 with
urging to pay zakdtand Abu Bakr's decision to fight against those
who refused to do so, respectively.57
Shafici (d. 204/819) notes Qur'an III:180, IX:34 and IX: 103 as
verses connected with ordaining the payment of zakdt,but does not
express any preference between them.58 From two fourth century
sources we uniquely learn that both cIrak b. Malik (Medinese, d.
101-5/719-23) and cUmar II held that Qur'an IX:34 was actually
abrogated by Qur'an IX: 103.59Indeed, this latter verse is the one
most often cited as regulating the order to pay zakdt,a fact which
justifies a detailed examination of the exegetical and traditional
material on it.
To begin with, Qur'an IX: 103 orders the Prophet to extract
sadaqafrom certain people in order to purify them of their guilt,
using the verbs tutahhiruhumwa-tuzakkfhimto denote such an aim.
The ones referredto by this verse are anonymously hinted at in the
preceding one, Qur'an IX: 102, as having committed bad deeds,
and the whole Qur'anic complex conveys the sense of sadaqanot as
charity but rather as a fine levied in order to purify from guilt.
Indeed, Razi, in his above-mentioned commentary on Qur'an
II:43, puts forward this notion as an alternative meaning of zakdt
by referring to Qur'an IX:103.60
The narratives often cited concerning the actual occasion on
which this verse was revealed, differ on the names and number of
those meant by it, as well as on the circumstances in which they
committed their sin, their repentance and related issues. The

1983, IX, 261-2; Baghawi (d. 516/1122), Sharhal-Sunna,Beirut 1983, V, 478;

Tabarsi, IV, 283.
56 Cf. 'Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211/826), Tafszr,Ms. Diir al-Kutub, Cairo, Taf-
sfr/242, 136(b); A. Mah.iyiri, TafsfrSufydnb. cUyayna(d. 198/813), Cairo 1983,
p. 349; Majlisi (d. 1111/1699), Bihir al-Anwar, Beirut 1983, XCIII, 29; Ibn
cAsakir, (d. 571/1175), Terikh,facs. ed., Amman 1988, IX, 693.
57 cAbdal-Razzaq, 125(b); Ibn
cAsakir,III, 43; but compare with Tabari, VII,
251-60, where no such connection is made.
58 Shaficl, al-Umm, Beirut
1980, II, 3. Cf. also al-Shaykh al-$aduiq,Jamic al-
Akhbdr,lithog. ed. 1310/1892, p. 99.
59 Ibn Abi Hatim and Abil al-Shaykh, quoted by Suyuiti,Durr, IV, 179. Com-
pare, however, with Ibn Maja, I, 569-70, where a similar notion was associated
rather with the name of Ibn cUmar.
60 Rizi, I, 325.
 ZAKAT 95

number of sinners varies between one and ten according to the dif-
ferent traditions which relate the whole affair, with the name of
Abfi Lubaba, Marwan b. cAbd al-Mundhir al-Ansdri often said to
have been the central figure in it. From Ibn CAbbas, )alibk,
Qatada, Zuhri (d. 124/741) and Ibn Zayd (d. 182/798), we learn
that the sinners concerned were those who did not join the Prophet
(takhallafzu)for the campaign of Tabuik and that they were ten in
number. Zayd b. Aslam (Ibn Zayd's father, Medinese, d.
136/753), however, says that their number was eight. Qatada, in
turn, is reported to have also advocated the number of four, while
to others were attributed the views that the actual number was
variably six, five, three or only one person, AbuiLubTba.6'But the
element of Tabilk does not seem to have stuck well into this nar-
rative before the mid-second century Muqatil, Ibn Zayd and some
figures of the generation which reportedfrom the "students" of Ibn
cAbbas. More often than not we are merely told that the verse was
revealed concerning Abui Lubaba and his associates (nazalatft abf
lubdba wa-ashdbihd)who tied themselves to the pillar (sdriya) of the
mosque as a sign of repentence, and were untied by the Prophet
only when Qurc'n IX: 102 was revealed. Then they came to the
Prophet offering him their property by which they hoped he would
purify their sin. However, the Prophet, we are told, refused to take
it until Qur'an IX: 103 was revealed.
Mujahid is cited as holding that the affair of AbulLubaba's guilt
and repentance occurred rather when he informed Banfi Qurayza,
who were besieged by the Prophet, that they were about to be
executed.62And as cited by Bayhaqi, Sacid b. al-Musayyib (d. 93-
100/711-8) was reported to have combined the two occasions in
which Abfu Lubaba committed such sin, i.e., Tabuik and Banfi
Qurayza, in one tradition.63 However, a cross-examinationof a few
other sources reveals some serious gaps in connecting the Banui
Qurayza affair with the verse under consideration. Muqatil, for
example, records the treacherous behaviour of Abui Lubaba in the

61 Cf. Muqatil, I,
159(b); 'Abd al-Razzaq, 53(b); Tabarl, XIV, 454-6; Wahidi,
p. 195; Ibn cArabi, II, 1010; Razi, IV, 507; Qurtubi, IV, 3081; Nasafi, II, 143;
Abul Hayyan (d. 754/1353), al-Bahral-Muh4t, Cairo 1328/1910, V, 94; Suyfiti,
Durr,IV, 275, quoting Tabari, Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318/930), Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn
Wardawayh (d. 410/1019) and Bayhaqi's (d. 458/1065) Dald'il al-Nubuwwa.
62
Qurtubi, IV, 3081; Abui Hayyan, V, 94.
63
Quoted by Suyfiti, Durr, IV, 276.
96 SULIMAN BASHEAR

Affair of BanuiQurayza in his commentary on Qur'an VIII:27 and

does not mention the Prophet's taking of sadaqaout of his property
on that occasion.64 Qummi, in turn, cites a tradition of al-Baqir
which claims that Qur'an IX: 103 was indeed revealed when Abfu
Lubaba repented following the affair with BanuiQurayza and that
he offered all of his property to the Prophet, but the latter took only
one third of it.65 But the same notion of extracting only one third
of Abui Lubaba's property on that occasion was forwarded by an
anonymous tradition cited in Wahidi's commentary on Qur'an
VIII:27.66As for the Sira compilation of Ibn Hisham (d. 213-8/828-
33), we notice that the tradition of Ibn Ishaq (d. 150/767) does not
mention the revelation of either verse or the extraction of sadaqaon
AbiuLubaba's property following the affair of BanuiQurayza. Here
Ibn Hisham resorts to hadith sources on the matter. But note that
on the one hand he cites a tradition with the isndd: Sufyan b.
CUyayna (d. 198/813) - Ismaill b. Abi Khalid (d. 146/763)
cAbd Allah b. Abi Qatada (Medinese, d. 99/717), which says that
it was Qur'an VIII:27 that was revealed on that occasion. On the
other hand, Ibn Hisham quotes unspecified hadfthscholars (bacdahl
al-'ilm) who say that Qur'an IX: 102 was revealed concerning Abui
Lubaba's repentance, but fails to mention the extraction of any
sadaqafrom his property on that occasion.67
The legal roots and implications of these discrepancies are worth
noting. They can be gauged from the way Malik b. Anas (d.
179/795) is reported to have used the tradition on the Prophet's
extraction of one third of AbulLubaba's property. For, as noted by
Ibn cArabiand Qurtubi, this tradition was reported from Malik by
Ashhab (b. CAbdal-cAzlz, d. 204/819), Ibn al-Qasim (CAbdal-
Rahman, d. 191/806) and cAbd Allah b. Wahb (d. 197/812), and
on its basis the Maliki legal school ruled to extract one third of one's
property as a sadaqa.As against this, the Shafici and Hanafi rites
put forwarda tradition according to which the Prophet told another
repenter, Kacb b. Malik, to keep an unspecified amount of his pro-
perty and, hence, they contradicted the ruling concerning the
extraction of one third. Needless to say, from the way the whole

64 Muqatil, I, 143(b).
65 Qummli, I, 303-4.
66 WIidi, pp. 175-6.
67
Ibn Hisham, al-Sfraal-Nabawiyya,Beirut 1975, III, 143-4.
 ZAKAT 97

issue was tackled by Ibn 'Arab! in particular, it is clear that what

remained for Muslim scholars was to argue whether the Abui
Lubaba tradition was a sahThone.68
Probably more important from the point of view of the develop-
ment of zakdt,was the question whether Qur'an IX: 103 was to be
considered as the verse which ordained it as the Muslim regular
duty or just a sadaqaof repentance (al-kaffdra)levied specifically
from the sinners concerned. The information provided by our
sources points to 'Ikrima and Juwaybir (d. 140-50/757-67) Ibn
cAbbas as holding the former view while the latter was associated
with the name of Hasan al-Basri.69We are also told that Malik
tended to accept this latter view which has some implications con-
cerning the refusal by certain Bedouin tribes of the regulation of
zakdton its basis and their claim that this was a particular case of
levying sadaqapersonally by the Prophet from those who sinned.70
To this last point we shall come back in the section on the ridda
(apostasy). One must note here that the position of the exegetes (ahl
al-tafsfr)and most legal scholars (al-fuqah/d) that this verse implied
the ordaining of regular zakdtupon the Muslims, had to face the
more general meaning implied by it, i.e. that the aim of zakatlsadaqa
was the purification of sins. And this difficulty is clearly reflected
in the variant reading of tutahhirhumltathuruhum in reference to
either the Prophet or to the sadaqaitself as the purifier of sins.71
Also noteworthy is the second part of verse IX: 103 in which the
Prophet was ordered to pray for those who pay the sadaqa(wa-salli
calayhiminna saldtakasakanunlahum). Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889)
understands prayer here as supplication (ducdY).72 From the
exegetical commentaries on this verse we learn that whenever
zakdtlsadaqawas paid, the Prophet prayed for the cleans-
ing/forgiveness of the donor's sins. In the words of Tabari, what
was meant by it was that "your (= Muhammad's) supplication
and request for their forgiveness is tranquillity (tuma'nina) to them

68 Cf. Ibn 'Arab!, II, 1011; Tabarsi, X, 134; Qurtubi, IV, 3081.
69
Razi, IV, 507-8; Qurtubi, IV, 3082.
70 Qurtubi,IV, 3083.
Zaijjj (d. 311/923), Maceinfal-Qur'an wa-ICribuhu, Beirut 1988, II, 467; Ibn
71

cArabi, II, 1010; Tabarsi, X, 134; Razi, IV, 508-9; Nasafi, II, 144; AbufHayyan,
V, 95; Baydawi, I, 400.
72 Ibn Qutayba, Gharfb al-Hadith, Beirut 1988, I, 15.
98 SULIMAN BASHEAR

that God has forgiven them and accepted their repentance" (inna
du'daaka wa- stighfdrakatuma'ninatun lahum bi-anna i-ldha qad 'afd
'anhumwa-qabila tawbatahum).For this he relies on a tradition of Ibn
cAbbas (from the family line of cAtiyya al-cAwfi) which interprets
wa-salli calayhim"as "request on their behalf for forgiveness of the
sins which they committed." The same was attributed to Ibn
cAbbas by IbnJurayj (d. 150/767) as well as reported from Dahhak
and forwarded by Muqatil.73 And Abui cUbayda, Ibn Qutayba,
Zajjaj and some later scholars understand "prayer" in this case as
supplication (ducdY),mercy (rahma) and forgiveness (maghfira).74
Clear support for this notion comes from the hadith genre in the
form of a widely circulated tradition associated with the name of the
Companion cAbd Allah b. Abi Awfa. It attributes to the latter the
saying that the Prophet used to pray for people from whom they
brought their sadaqdtand that once he made such a prayer on behalf
of cAbd Allah's father, Abuf Awfa.75 From one source we uniquely
learn that the Companion Bashir b. al-Khasasiya from the tribe of
Saduis advised a certain relative of his, named Dalsam (possibly
Daysam al-Sadiisi) to ask the collectors of sadaqato pray for him as
stated in Qur'an IX: 103 explaining that this would safeguard
against ill treatment by the latter.76 However, the isndd information
and certain variations in the tradition of Ibn Abi Awfa provides a
better ground for dating. From such information one can easily
conclude that the one responsible for circulating this latter tradition

73 Tabari, XIV, 454-6;

Suyuit1, Durr, IV, 281, quoting Ibn Abi HIatim,
Muqatil, I, 159(b).
74 Abiu 'Ubayda (d. 210/825),
Majdz al-Qur'an, Cairo 1988, I, 268; Ibn
Qutayba, Ta'wil Mushkilal-Qur'dn,Cairo 1973, pp. 460-1; idem, TafstrGharTb al-
Qur'dn, Beirut 1978, p. 192; Zajjaj, II, 467; Baghawi, Sharh, V, 486;
Zamakhshari, II, 170-1.
75 Tayalisi (d. 204/819), Musnad,Beirut
1406/1985, p. 110; CAbdal-Razzaq (d.
211/826), Musannaf,Beirut 1983, IV, 58; Ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), Musnad,Cairo
1313/1895, IV, 353, 355, 381, 383; Bukhri- (d. 254/868), $aht.h,Beirut 1981, II,
136; Muslim (d. 261/874), $aih4, Beirut n.d., III, 121; Ibn Maja (d. 275/888),
Sunan, Cairo 1952, I, 572; Ibn Qutayba, Mushkil, p. 461; Nasa7i (d. 303/915),
Sunan, Cairo 1987, V, 31; Ibn al-Jariud(d. 307/919), al-MuntaqaMin al-Sunan,
Beirut 1987, p. 150; Tabarani (d. 360/970), al-Mujam al-Kabfr,Baghdad 1983,
XVIII, 10; Bayhaql (d. 458/1065), al-Sunanal-Kubra, Beirut 1986, IV, 157;
Baghawl, Sharh,V, 485; Tabarsi, X, 133-4; Ibn Hajar (d. 852/1448), Buluighal-
Mardm,Beirut 1982, p. 145; Suyu-ti,Durr, IV, 281, quoting Ibn Abi Shayba (d.
235/849), Bukharl, Muslim, Ibn Maja, AbuiDawiud, Nasa'i, Ibn al-Mundhir (d.
318/930) and Ibn Mardawayh (d. 410/1019).
76 Suyiiti, Durr, IV, 282, quoting Ibn Mardawayh and al-Baru-di's
Marijfat
al-Sahdba.
 ZAKAT 99

was the mid-second century ShuCbab. al-Hajiaj (d. 160/776). And

this is indirectly supported by an isolated report cited by the early
cAbd al-Razzaq which seemingly aimed to contradict the notion of
supplication made by the collector on behalf of the payer of sadaqa.
According to it, Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767) asked 'Ata' (b. Abi
Rabah?, d. 114/732) whether he had heard of any such supplication
being made in accordance with Qur'an IX: 103, and the latter's
answer was in the negative.77However, cAbd al-Razzaq's contem-
porary, ShMfici,is quoted as having stood in favour of making such
supplication and even as developing a certain formula of it which
conveys a trace of the element of purification, though the element
of guilt committed by the payer is not mentioned. "May God", it
says, "recompense you for what you have given, make it a purifier,
and bless what you have kept" (uhibbuanyaqula l-wdlzcindaakhdhi
s-sadaqatz:ajarakal-ldhuft-md actaytawa-jaCalahu wa-baraka
tuhu-ran laka
ft-ma abqayta).78

The Ridda Contextand theAbuiBakr-cUmarI Controversy

In an isolated tradition bearing the name of the Companion Abui
Umama al-Bahili, Thaclaba b. Habib al-Ansari is said to have
refused to abide by Qur'an IX: 103 and, when asked by the Prophet
to pay sadaqa,considered it as equal tojizya, saying: "by God, this
is but a sister to jizya" (wa-l-ldhimadhddhihiilld ukhayyatu
l-jizya).79
However, what seems to be a better reflection of cases of refusal to
pay zakatand of considering it as a fine (maghram) is Qur'an IX:98
which is wholly dedicated to blaming certain Bedouins for that.
One notices that most commentaries understand the payment
referred to by this verse as the requested sadaqa saying that
Bedouins used to pay it hypocritically and fearfully (riya'anwa-
taqiyyatan)without believing in any recompensation (thawdb)by it
and hoping that the Muslim rule (ghalaba)would pass away. In
some sources, the notion is forwardedthat the payment meant here
is aimed also for the purpose of jihd.d80From other ones we learn

77
'Abd al-Razzaq, Musannaf,IV, 57.
78
Zamakhsharl, II, 170-1; cf. also Bayhaql, Sunan,IV, 157; Tabarsi, X, 133-4.
79
Tabarani, al-Mu'jamal-Kabfr,VIII, 260-1.
80
Cf. Muqatil, I, 158(b); Fayr-azabadi(d. 817/1414), Tanwfr al-MiqbasMin
TafsfrIbn CAbbds, Beirut n.d., p. 127; Ibn Qutayba, Tafsfr, p. 191; Zamakhshari,
II, 168; Tabarsi, X, 124-5; Qurtubi, IV, 3073; Nasafi, II, 142; Baydawi, I, 399.
100 SULIMAN BASHEAR

that Dahhak and Suddi understood the requested payment as sada-

qdt extracted from properties or what is spent "in the way of God"
(fi sabfli 1-ldhi).81 But probably more revealing is the notion for-
warded by Ibn Zayd that the Bedouins referred to used to make
such payment hypocritically in order to avoid being raided and
fought against and, hence, considered their spending as a fine
(maghram).82Farra' (d. 207/822) and Zajjaj are quoted as saying
that the hypocritic Bedouins used at the same time to wish that the
Muslims and their Prophet die or be killed in order to be freed of
the payment which they considered merely as a fine without any
recompensation.83 And warning against such an attitude comes in
the form of two unique prophetical traditions, though the ones
referred to by them are not explicitly said to be Bedouins. In one,
associated with the name of Abui Hurayra, the Prophet urges
people not to forget the recompensation of zakdtwhich, he explains,
is earned by asking God to consider it as booty (maghnam),not a fine
(maghram).84The second, attributed to the Prophet through a family
line of Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148/765) says that considering zakdt as a
fine is one of the ominous signs for the end of times (ld taqiimus-
saCatuhatta takuina... z-zakdtu maghraman).85
But the widest coverage of cases of Bedouin tribes who refused
to pay zakdt was traditionally related to the period of the ridda wars
after the Prophet's death. This led several western scholars, like
Wellhausen, Caetani, Brockelmann and others to emphasize the
socio-political and economic revolt of these wars, belittle their
religious motives and even question the very applicability of the
term "apostasy" to them.86 Others, like Wensinck and Kister,
doubted the authenticity of the traditional reports especially on the
positions attributed to Abui Bakr and 'Umar I, while they con-
sidered them as indicating that the obligation of paying zakdt to

Abuf al-Shaykh and Ibn AbiIHatim, quoted by Suyati, Durr, IV, 267.
82
Tabari, XIV, 431; Suyu-ti,Durr, IV, 267, quoting Ibn Abi Hatim.
83
Quoted by Tabarsi, X, 124-5.
84 Ibn 'Asakir, VII, 452.
85
Majlisi, XCIII, 28.
86
J. Wellhausen, Das Arabische
ReichundSeinSturz,repr. Berlin, 1960, pp. 14-5;
C. Brockelmann, Historyof theIslamicPeoples,N.Y. 1947, pp. 45-6. For Caetani's
view, see A.J. Wensinck, MuslimCreed,Leiden 1932, p. 12. See also B. Lewis, The
Arabs in History, London 1958, p. 51; M.A. Sha'ban, Islamic History, a New Inter-
pretation, Cambridge 1971, pp. 19-23; E. Shoufani, Al-Ridda and the Muslim Con-
questof Arabia,Beirut 1972, pp. 10-47, 71-106.
 ZAKAT 101

the rulers was questioned as late as the second century A. H., but
still emphasized the socio-economic and political rather than
theological motives behind the ridda wars.87 Of the scholars who
highlighted the religious aspects of the ridda wars, mention may be
made of M.W. Watt and E. Landau-Tasseron, though the former
did so because he accepted the traditional Muslim view on the
matter.88
All this justifies a further examination of the reports on the
motives for the refusal to pay zakdt after the Prophet's death as well
as other related issues. One may recall here the information, briefly
noted above,89 that Malik b. Anas tended to accept the rationale for
such refusal during Abui Bakr's reign, namely that the imperative
verb khudhof Qur'an IX: 103 applied personally to the Prophet and
that, since the latter was the only one empowered by God to levy
zakdt in return for making the prayer and invocation to purify the
payers, such a condition ceased to exist with his death; hence, the
duty to pay zakdtto his successor does not apply. Also of importance
is the fact, noted by Kister, that, following Shafici, some scholars
differentiated between two different kinds of murtaddiin:those who
renounced Islam completely and followed the "false prophets",
and those who adhered to Islam, were ready to perform prayer but
refused only to pay zakdt, saying that, according to Qur'an IX: 103,
only the Prophet was empowered to purify them in return. 90
Clearly, as Kister rightly notes, the question at stake, at least for
the Shica, was recognizing Abiu Bakr's authority after the Prophet,
a fact testified by a poetical verse usually cited in this context and
alternatively attributed to al-Hutay'a, his brother, al-Khutayl b.
Aws, Haritha b. Suraqa al-Kindi and possibly others

87 Wensinck, pp. 13-4; M.A. Kister, "... illa bi-haqqihi ....", JerusalemStudies
in Arabicand Islam, 5 (1984), 51-2.
88
E. Landau-Tasseron, Aspectsof theRidda Wars,unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, the Hebrew University ofJerusalem, 1981, pp. 3-4; W.M. Watt, Muhammad
at Medina, Oxford 1956, pp. 147-8.
89
See note 70, above.
90 Kister, pp. 35-6. Cf. Shafili, al-Umm,Cairo 1322/1904, IV, 135; al-Busti (d.
388/998), Mac'lim al-Sunan,Halab 1933, II, 5-6; Ibn cArabi, II, 1006-7; Ibn Abi
al-Hadid, SharhNahj al-Baldgha,Cairo 1963, XVII, 210; Baghawi, Shark,V, 491;
Qurtubi, IV, 3083; Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1372) al-Biddyawa-l-Nihdya,Cairo 1932,
VI, 311. See also Ibn Actham al-Kilfi (d. 214/829), Kitubal-Futiih,Beirut 1986,
I, 14, where such differentiation is made without mentioning Qur'an IX: 103.
102 SULIMAN BASHEAR

too.9' It is worth noting that, as cited by one source in a report car-

ried by a clear Syrian line of isndd, this verse was placed in the con-
text of Abui Bakr's dispatch of Khalid b. al-Walid to reinforce the
Muslim forces of occupation in Syria.92 But it is probably more
important to note, as E. Landau-Tasseron has, that there is nothing
in the verse which implies that only the political and not the
religious authority of Abui Bakr was challenged. Actually, one verse
of the poem could be taken to imply that the rebels considered the
prayer of purification which they expected in return "as sweet or
even sweeter for them than dates" (wa-inna l-ladhi sacaliikumufa-
manaCtumu,la-ka-t-tamriaw ahld ladayhim mina t-tamri).
Another important element which figures centrally in the reports
on the refusal to pay zakat by the ridda people was cUmar's initial
opposition to Abui Bakr's decision to fight them in spite of the fact
that they were ready to profess the testimony of faith (shahada) and
perform prayer. But before conducting a detailed examination of
these reports note must be made of a few traditions which attribute
to cUmar a certain opposition to the enforcement of paying the
zakdt also during the Prophet's lifetime. They are unusually cited
in the context of interpreting the above-mentioned Qur'an IX:34
and bear the names of the Companions Ibn cAbbas and Thawban
as well as that of the Successor Salim b. Abi al-Jacd (d. 97-101/715-
9). From Ibn cAbbas we hear through the link: Jacfar b. Iyas (Abuf
Bishr, d. 123-31/740-8) Mujahid. We are told that when Qur'an
IX:34 was revealed, people complained that they could leave
nothing for their children to inherit. cUmar spoke on their behalf
and the Prophet explained that zakdt was ordained so that the
remainder of their property be purified (li-yalfba bihd amwdlukum)

91 Kister, pp. 38-40, notes 15, 16, 19. 20. This verse usually opens with saying:
ataCndrasuila1-lihi ma kdnabaynand,
fa-yd la-cibddi1-lahima-li-abi bakri.
For the variant wording and attribution of it, see al-Hutay'a, Dfwan, Cairo 1958,
pp. 329-30; Shaficl, IV, 134; Ibn Actham, I, 49; al-Busti, II, 4; al-Baghdadl,
Khizdnatal-Adab,Cairo 1967, II, 408, quoting Ibn Qutayba; Ibn cAbd al-Barr, al-
Tamhfd, Rabat 1974, IV, 232; al-Mawardi, al-Ahkdm al-Sultdniyya,Cairo
1282/1880, pp. 54-5; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, XVII, 211-2; Yaqut, Mu jam al-Bulddn,
Leipzig 1867, II, 286-7; Ibn Kathir, VI, 313. Cf. also the sources cited by Kister,
p. 35, n. 9, and E. Landau-Tasseron, pp. 131-2, n. 113.
92 Bayhaqi (d. 458/1065), al-Sunanal-Kubrd,Beirut 1986, VIII, 178, the full line
of isnadbeing: ... Yacquibb. Sufyan (al-Fasawl, d. 277/987) - Abiual-Yaman al-
Hakam b. Nafic (Hims, d. 211-2/826-7) - Safwdn b. cAmr (Himsi, d. 155/771)
cAbd al-Rahman b. Jubayr b. Nufayr (d. 118/736).
 ZAKAT 103

and that the properties which they leave behind were safeguarded
by the laws of inheritance (al-mawdrfth).93
The Thawban and Salim b. Abi al-JaCd traditions are almost
identical in content. They do not explicitly refer to zakdt and say
only that when this verse was revealed people complained by
wondering what kind of property they were allowed to acquire. We
are also told that, in answer to 'Umar's enquiry the Prophet said
that the best kind of property is "a tongue to admonish God, a
heart to thank Him, and a good/believing wife to help one in the
matters of his religion. " A close look at the isndd of these traditions
reveals that they were basically transmitted from Salim and that the
chain of Thawban was added to the line only in some variants
reported from Salim by Mansuir b. al-Mu'tamir (d. 132/749), 'Amr
b. Murra (d. 116-8/734-6) and a certain Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah
al-Muradi. Note also that when the tradition is reported from Man-
suir and CAmr by either Thawri (d. 161/777) or al-ACmash
(Sulayman b. Mihran, d. 145-8/762-5), then the isndd line ends
with Salim b. Abi al-JaCd.94
Coming back to 'Umar's opposition to Abu Bakr during the ridda
wars, one notes that it usually takes the form of attributing to the
Prophet the saying that he was ordered to fight people until they
profess that there was no God but Allah, and that from the moment
they pronounce such a statement, their blood and properties would
be safeguarded except for the rights due on them, with God being
the only one to whom they should account (umirtu an uqdtila l-ndsa
hattdyaquluzla ildha illd 1-ldh,fa-idha qdliihacasamuiminni dimadahumwa-
amwdlahum illd bi-haqqihalwa-4hisdbuhum(ald 1-ldh). As against this,
Abu Bakr is usually quoted as swearing to fight against those who
distinguish between prayer and zakdt, the latter being the right due
out of property, even if it was only a camel's rope which they used
to pay to the Prophet (wa-l-ldhi la-uqdtilannamanfarraqa baynal-saldti
wa-l-zakdti,fa-inna l-zakdta haqqu1-mdli, wa-l-ldhi law manaCuini ciqdlan
kdnuyu 'addtinahuild rasuili1-ldhi la-qdtaltuhumcalayhz).
Roughly speaking, such reports were attributed to Anas, Ibn
cUmar, AbM Hurayra, Jabir and other Companions as well as

93 Bayhaqi, ShuCabal-Iman, Beirut 1990, III, 194;

Qurtubi, IV, 2965, quoting
Abu Dawuid (d. 275/888).
94 Thawrl, Tafsir,Beirut 1983, p. 123; Ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855),
Musnad,Cairo
1313/1895, V, 278, 282; Tabari, XIV, 220-3; WMhidi,p. 184; Tabarsi, X, 53;
Suyiti-, Durr, IV, 176-8.
104 SULIMAN BASHEAR

reported from Successors in mursal forms and come within different

contexts and variations. The ones relating 'Umar's position usually
conclude with his saying that he was convinced by Abui Bakr.
Noting this latter kind of report, Wensinck generally expressed the
view that "they were prepared in later times with a view to ques-
tions that were then urgent."95 To this, Kister rightly adds the
observation that "the precedent of Abui Bakr had to serve as an
example for dealing with similar cases of revolt in the contemporary
Muslim Empire. "96 And Landau-Tasseron suggests that those who
justified wars against those who refused to pay alms, not only
during the reign of AbuiBakr but also in later times, had to identify
them as murtaddiin who are worse than just infidels. On the other
hand, she says, "the fact that the position of Abui Bakr needed
justification points to some objections not only contemporaneousto
it but also in later times when the (relevant) traditions
crystallized."97 In order to elaborate further on dating what seems
to be a process of turning the payment of zakdtinto an obligation,
but without going into further details of the riddawars themselves,
a closer examination of the relevant reports is unavoidable.
To begin with, according to the tradition associated with the
name of Ibn 'Umar, the Prophet says that he was ordered to fight
against people until they not only profess the two testimonies of
faith but also perform prayer and pay zakdt(4attdyashhadiu ... wa-
yuqfmu-1-saldtawa-yutk 1-zakdta...). Note also that this tradition
brings the Prophet's statement in its own right, i.e. without the
context of Abuf Bakr's policy, cUmar's intervention, or the ridda
wars in the first place.98
According to the tradition of Anas, the conditions for not fighting
were stated to be professing the two shahddas, facing the qiblain their
prayer and eating meat slaughtered according to Muslim law.
There is no doubt that this tradition belongs to a later stage of
establishing certain criteria concerning who is a believer whom
Muslims should not fight and does not relate to zakdtin particular.

95 Wensinck, p. 14.
96
Kister, p. 38.
97 Landau-Tasseron, p. 15.
98
BukhMri,I, 11-2; Muslim, I, 39; Muhammad b. Nasr al-Marwazi (d.
294/906), TaCz4mQadral-Saldt,Medina 1406/1985, I, 89-95; al-Busti, II, 10-11;
Ibn Manda (d. 395/1004), Kitdbal-Imdn,Beirut 1985, I, 165-6; Baghawi, Sharlh,
I, 67-8.
 ZAKAT 105

Note also that it was transmitted exclusively by the link: Ibn al-
Mubarak (181/797) - lIumayd al-Tawil (d. 143/760), and com-
paring the stylistic variations in it shows that its literary form was
the product of the generation which circulated it from Ibn al-
Mubarak.99One must add that, as such, this tradition does not
mention the involvement of cUmar or the ridda context. And
though this context is mentioned by an isolated variant of it
transmitted from Anas by the link: Macmar b. Rashid (d. 153/770)
Zuhri (d. 124/741), the comment of the traditionist Ibn Abi
Hatim (d. 327/839) leaves no doubt that this was a confused
moulding with another tradition associated with the name of Abui
Hurayra, the circulation of which was made through Zuhri too.100
No mention of cUmar's involvement, the riddacontext or any
conditions apart from the shahddawas made by less circulatedtradi-
tions associatedwith the names of the Companions AbuiBakr,Jabir
b. cAbd Allah, Jartiral-Bajall, Sahl b. Sacd, Samura b. Jundab, Ibn
cAbbas, Abui Malik al-Ashcari, al-Nucman b. BashIr, Mucadh b.
Jabal, a certain cousin of a man from Balqin and a mursalreport
of Ibrahim al-Nakhaci(d. 96/714),101 and the same can be noted for
most variants of the widely circulated tradition of Abut Hurayra,
transmitted from him by Sacid b. al-Musayyib (d. 93-100/711-8),
Abiu Salama b. cAbd al-Rahman (d. 94-104/712-22), Abiu Salih
(Dhakwan al-Samman, d. 101/719), al-Hasan (al-Basr1?), Ham-
mam b. Munabbih (d. 132/749), al-Acraj (cAbd al-Rahman b.
Hurmuz, d. 110-17/728-35), cAbd al-Rahman b. Abi cAmra(death
date unknown), cAbd al-Rahman b. Yacqfib al-Juhani (death date

99 Cf. Ibn al-Mubarak, Musnad,Riyad 1987, p. 147; Ibn Hanbal, III, 199, 224-
5; Tirmidhi (d. 279/892), Cairo 1934, X, 71-4; Marwazi, ibid.; al-BustY,ibid.,
quoting Abfu Dawuid; Baghawl, Sharh, I, 69; Abu Nasr al-Ytindrti (comp. in
521/1127), Hadtth,Ms. Zahiriyya, Daamascus,majmzuc/24, p. 91; Haythami (d.
807/1404), Majmacal-Zawa'id,Cairo and Beirut 1987, I, 26; quoting Tabarani's
al-Mu'jamal-Awsatwith additional variations.
100 Ibn Abi Hatim, cIlal al-Hadtth, Beirut 1985, II, 152-3, 159-60, quoting Abu-
Zurca (al-Rdzi, d. 264/878). Cf. also Bayhaql, Sunan,VIII, 177.
101 Muslim, I, 40; Ibn Maja, II, 1295; Marwazi, Tacz4m,I, 95 (cf. also his al-
Sunna,Beirut 1988, pp. 49-50, where, owing to an obvious textual confusion, one
is led to understand that the ones meant by this statement are the Jews and Chris-
tians); Tabarani, al-Mujam al-Kabir,VI, 132; VIII, 382; XI, 201; AbulTThir al-
Dhuhall (d. 367/977), IHadtth,Kuweit 1986, pp. 23-4; Bayhaqi, Sunan, VIII,
Haythami, I, 25-6, quoting Tabarani's al-Mu5am al-Kabir and al-Mujam al-Awsat
and Bazzar's (d. 292/904) Musnad.According to the mursal report of al-Nakhac1,
Abui Bakr stated his position invoking Qur'an III:144. See for it Ibn Abi Shayba
(d. 235/849), Mu.yannaf,Bombay 1970, III, 114.
106 SULIMAN BASHEAR

unknown) and father of Abiu al-CAnbas(Kathir b. CUbayd, death

date unknown).102Note also that the reporter of the tradition of
AbuiSlih - Abii Hurayra is al-A'mash (Sulayman b. Mihran, d.
145-8/762-5) who reported the same from Abui Sufyan (Talha b.
Nafic al-Wasiti, death date unknown) - Jabir. And the fact that
Sacid b. al-Musayyib's transmission from Abu Hurayra was
reported by Zuhri can also be suggestive concerning the dating of
this tradition. For, this is basically different from another variant
of a tradition of Abui Hurayra which Zuhri reports from cUbayd
Allah b. cAbd Allah b. cUtba b. Masciid (d. 92-9/710-7) where the
Prophet's statement is said to have been invoked by cUmar in the
context of his controversy with AbuiBakr over fighting against the
ridda people.
All in all, then, attributing such controversy to Abiu Bakr and
cUmar in the context of the riddais made only by this last variant
of Zuhri's tradition which actually opens with the introductory
note: "when the Prophet died and Abui Bakr came and the Arabs
apostasized ..." etc.. And from Zhuri it was widely circulated by
several mid-second century figures like cUqayl b. Khalid al-
Umawi, Yahya b. Sacid al-Ansari, Muhammad b. al-Walid al-
Zubaydi, Shucayb b. Abi Hamza, cAbd al-Rahman b. Khalid b.
Musafir, Muhammad b. Hadar (Khidr), Sulayman b. Kathir, the
biographer Muhammad b. Ishaq, Yu-nus b. Yazid al-Ayli and
Muhammad b. AbI Hafsa. Comparing the slight variation in its
wording suggests that its wide circulation was the product of efforts
by people who reported it from this generation in the second half
of the second century. Note also that as reported from Zuhri by
Macmar b. Rashid, this tradition is presented as a mursalone of
cUbayd Allah b. cAbd Allah b. cUtba; when reported by Sufyan b.
cUyayna (d. 198/813) it is even a mursalof Zuhri himself; and when
reported by Sufyan b. al-Husayn (d. ca. 170/786) it is not clear
whether it included the element of the ridda.103

102 Muslim, I, 38-9; Ibn Maja, II, 1295; Tirmidhi, X, 68-9; Abui al-Fawdris

al-Zaynabi, Amdlf, Ms. Zahiriyya, Damascus, majmuzi/35, p. 94; Marwazi,

Tacz4m,I, 89-95; Tabarani, al-Mu?am al-Awsat, Riyad 1986, II, 158-9; Ibn
Manda, I, 508; Tammam al-Razi (d. 414/1023), Fawd'id, Beirut 1989, I, 84-6;
Bayhaql, Sunan, I, 38-9, 106; III, 186; IV, 338; VIII, 177, 196, 202; Baghawl,
Sharh,I, 65-6.
103 Cf. Ibn Hanbal, I, 11, 19, 35-6; Bukharl, II, 109-10; Muslim, I, 38; Tir-
midhi, X, 70-1; Nasali (d. 303/915), Sunan,Cairo 1987, V, 14-5; al-Busti, II, 2;
Ibn Manda, I, 164-6, 382; Bayhaqi, Sunan, I, 188; VIII, 176-8.
 ZAKAT 107

In a few sources, the Abud Bakr-'Umar controversy is brought

either without sufficient traditional information or in a form imply-
ing a discourse about the position of CUmar.104 Qatada was once
reported by Sacid b. Abi cAruiba (d. 156-7/772-3) as placing Abut
Bakr's insistence on fighting against people who refused to pay
zakdt within the context of interpreting Qur'an V:54. However,
though this report hints at a certain opposition to Abut Bakr, it does
not specify cUmar or any other companion for it.105 In another uni-
que report cited by al-Jahiz (d. 255/868), the opposition to Abu
Bakr by invoking the above-mentioned prophetical statement is
said to have come from the Ansar and Muhajiru-n.'06 From a family
report of Yahya b. Yacmar/Yacmur, we learn that opposition to
Abut Bakr was shared by all the Companions of the Prophet except
cAll who encouraged him to enforce the payment of zakdt.'07
Various elements of the position of Abui Bakr as well as opposi-
tion to him casually occur in a few "historical" reports on the ridda.
An isolated one, cited by Ibn Actham, attributes such opposition to
the Companion AbM Ayyub al-Ansari in the context of the riddaof
Banut Kinda under al-Ashcath b. Qays. Needless to note that at the
center of this report stands Abui Bakr's persistence in his position
on fighting against those who refused to pay "even a camel's rope
which they used to pay to the Prophet''.108
Two similar narratives on the ridda of Banut Kinda were cited by
Tabari, Ibn cAsakir and other sources. One of them bears the name
of Ibn Ishaq (from cAbd Allah b. Abi Bakr, d. 130-5/747-52), and
the other is carried by an isndd ending with Ibrahim al-Nakhaci.109
We notice that in this latter report AbM Bakr refused to accept Banut
Kinda's willingness to pray without payment of zakdt, insisted on

104
Shafici, al-Umm, IV, 134; Ibn Hibban, al-Stra al-Nabawiyya wa-Akhbadral-
Khulafd', Beirut 1987, p. 430; Mawardi, al-Ahkdm al-Sultaniyya, Cairo 1298/1880,
pp. 54-5; Ibn 'Arabi, al-CAwdsimMin al-Qawdsim,Cairo 1408/1987, pp. 63-4; Ibn
Kathir, al-Biddya wa-l-Nihdya, Cairo 1932, VI, 311; Dhahabi, Tdrikh al-Isldm,
Beirut 1987, III, 27; al-Muhibb al-Tabari, al-Ryaddal-Nadira,Cairo 1970, I, 175;
Suyiti-, Tdrikh al-Khulafd',Beirut 1986, pp. 84-6. Note that the phrase usually
applied here "wa-can 'umara"could also be taken to mean "and about 'Umar".
105 Bayhaql, Sunan,VIII, 177-8.
106
Al-Jahiz, al-cUthmanziyya,
Cairo 1955, pp. 81-2.
107
Al-Muhibb al-Tabari, 1, 175-6.
108 Ibh Actham, I, 58. For the other cases of refusal to pay zakdt
by Qurra b.
Hubayra al-Qushayrl and Malik b. Nuwayra al-Tamimi, see his I, 23, 25-6.
109 Tabarl, Tdrikh, Beirut 1967, III,
339; Ibn cAsakir, III, 43; Majlisi (d.
1111/1699), Bihalr al-Anwair,Beirut 1983, XXVIII, 11, quoting TUisi'sAmdlf.
108 SULIMAN BASHEAR

waging jihdd against anyone who refuses to pay even a camel's

rope, and invoked Qur'an III:144 on that occasion.
The reports on the refusal of Hadramawt to pay zakat to Abui
Bakr bear the names of Sayf b. 'Umar (d. 180/796), Yuinus b.
Bukayr (d. 199/814) and Waqidi (d. 207/822). What is common
between them all is the element of Abfi Bakr's insistence on pay-
ment of zakdt.However, they sharply differ on the issues of opposi-
tion to him, the leaders of the rebels, the involvement of Baniu
Kinda, the above-mentioned poetical verses on disobedience to
Abui Bakr and other minor details."10
The refusal of Banui Tamim and Banfi Hanifa to pay zakdtis
mentioned by the reports of Waqidi (from cUqba b. Jubayra),
Muhammad b. cAbd Allah and Usama b. Zayd al-Laythi (both
from Zuhri) and Muhammad b. cAbd Allah b. cUrwa (from his
father).11'However, these reports do not include any reference to
the positions of either Abuf Bakr or cUmar or indeed any Qur'anic
verse being invoked or poetry uttered on that occasion. From
Tabari we hear of two reports by Sayf on the riddaof a confedera-
tion of Baniu Asad, Ghatafan an Tay'. We also learn that these
tribes sent delegations to Medina proposing to perform prayer but
not pay zakdt and that these delegations were sponsored by the
leaders there (wujuihu1-ndsz)except al-cAbbas. However, no men-
tion of the invocation of the above-noted prophetical statement on
the matter is made in this context, though Abui Bakr's insistence on
fighting even for a camel's rope occurs in one of them."12 Finally,
there is one report of Sayf (from Hisham b. cUrwa - his father)
in which Qurra b. Hubayra complains about the payment of sadaqa
which he considers "a tax" (itdwa) and promises that the Arabs
woule obey if exempted from it."'

11O Cf. Tabari, Tdrikh,Beirut 1967, III, 339; Ibn CAsakir,III, 37-40; IX, 639;
Zaylali (d. 762/1360), Nasb al-Raya, Cairo 1938, II, 342, quoting Waqidi's Kitab
al-Ridda. For this last source, see E. Landau-Tasseron, p. 20 and n. 106 in
reference to M. Murayni, "Ein neuer Bericht uber die Wahl des ersten Kalifen",
Arabica,25 (1978), pp. 236 ff.
" Ibn 'Asakir, V, 555.
112
Cf. Tabari, Tdrfkh,III, 244-6, 258; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya,VI, 312.
113
Tabari, Tdrzkh,III, 259.
 ZAKAT 109

Scholars'Viewsand Concluding
Remarks:
This last kind of historical reports on the riddawars as well as
some of the exegetical traditions on Qur'an IX:98 may contain a
grain of truth about actual cases in which certain Bedouin tribes
resisted the enforcement of paying zakdtand considered it as a tax,
fine or even a kind ofjizya. It is striking to note, however, that such
reports do not figure at all in the second century theological con-
troversies over the obligatory nature of zakdt,which centered on the
question of whether those who refuse to pay it should be fought
against. Such controversies drew basically upon the hadathmaterial
where the two opposite views were attributed to Abui Bakr on the
one hand and 'Umar, by invoking the above-mentioned pro-
phetical tradition, on the other.
An example of such use is the way in which the early AbufYiusuf
(d. 182/798) cites the above-mentioned tradition of Jabir b. 'Abd
Allah, on the conditions for fighting against non-believers, as a
basis for the legal ruling concerning one who apostasizes (al-hukmu
Jf 1-murtaddi cani 1-isldmi).According to him, this tradition implies
that such a person should be requested to repent (yustatdb).From
the way the whole issue is presented one can also gauge the
existence of an opposite view which relied on another prophetical
statement saying: "he who changes his religion should be killed"
(man baddaladinahufa-qtulzihu)."14And the comment made by
Baghawi leaves no doubt that such legal controversy also stood
behind the circulation of the traditions of Ibn cUmar and Anas
which, as noted above, do give detailed conditions in which a non-
Muslim should be combatted. In Baghawi's words, these traditions
meant for most scholars (wa-huwa qawlu akthariahli l-cilm) that the
repentance of a zindaqmust be accepted though his sincerity should
be left to God. However, he says, Malik and Ibn Hanbal added
that such repentance should not be accepted from one who conceals
his infidelity (ld tuqbalu tawbatu l-kdfiri 1-mustasirribi-kufrihi).115
A similar use of the widely circulated tradition of Zuhri from
cUbayd Allah - Abiu Hurayra, was made by al-Busti. Referring
to the phrase "wa-hisdbuhum cala l-ldh", he says that "most
scholars" held that an infidel who conceals his unbelief should not
be punished if he demonstrates Islam and his repentance should be
114
Abui Yiusuf, Kitab al-Khardj,Cairo 1352/1933, p. 180.
115
Baghawl, Sharh,I, 69.
110 SULIMAN BASHEAR

accepted even when he admits that he previously used to conceal

disbelief. We also learn that Malik, and possibly Ibn Hanbal too
(wa-yuhkd dhdlikaaydan 'an ahmad bni hanba), used in turn to reject
the repentance of a zindiq. 16 From another source we learn that Ibn
Hanbal in particular held that one who does not pay his zakdt
should be severely exhorted with the aim of causing him to repent,
but no mention of considering him an unbeliever or fighting against
him is made.117 And Ibn CAbd al-Barr says that Makhlul (d.
118/736), Hammad b. Zayd (d. 179/795), Wakic (d. 197/812),
Shafic1, his student Abui Thawr (Ibrahim b. Khalid al-Kalbi, d.
240/854) and all followers of the Shaficite school understood Abiu
Bakr's vow to fight against people who separate between prayer and
zakdt as meaning those who do not fulfill either of these two
duties. 1"8
A certain legal use of the Jabir tradition is inherent in the
reference of one variant of it to Qur'an LXXXVIII:21-2 according
to which the Prophet is told that he is merely a reminder (mudhakkir)
and not a forceful ruler (musaylir) except for those who turn away
and disbelieve. This variant was reported from Jabir by the link:
Thawr1 - Abii al-Zubayr al-Makki (d. 126/743), but does not
occur when Abui al-Zubayr is reported by Ibn Jurayj. Note also that
such reference to the scripture is absent from another variant of
Jabir's tradition reported by the link: al-Acmash Abu- Sufyan,
though this variant was cited already by the early Abfi Yfisuf in the
context of the Prophet's blame against Usama b. Zayd for killing
certain people who professed the shahdda."19
The gradual rise of the concept of zakdt and its institution as an
integral part of Muslim creed is reflected in a series of statements
attributed to figures from early Islam and usually cited without the
context of the ridda wars. One such statement was cited already by
Abiu Yuisuf who attributes it to Ibn Masci'd without isndd (using the
phrase: "balaghanT can"). According to it, Ibn Masci'd said:
"anyone who holds out the zakdt is not a Muslim and if he does not
pay it he has no (accepted) prayer" (ma-manicu l-zakdti bi-muslim,

116 Al-Busti, II, 11.

117 Abfu al-Fadl Salih (d. 266/879), Masa'il al-ImamAhmadb. Hanbal, Delhi
1988, II, 252.
118
Ibn CAbdal-Barr (d. 463/879), al-Tamhid,Rabat 1974, IV, 231.
119 Cf. Abfi Yuisuf, p. 180; Muslim,
I, 39; Ibn Maja, II, 1295; Ibn Manda, I,
166-9; Tammam al-Razi, I, 84-6; Bayhaqi, Shucab,I, 38-9.
 ZAKAT 11

wa-man lam yu'addiha fa-ld saldta lahu). To this Abu- Yuisuf

immediately adds, albeit also without isndd, part of the report
according to which Aba Bakr threatened to wage a holy war (jihdd)
against people who abstain from paying even a camel's rope, etc.'20
Two other early sources, Abui cUbayd (d. 224/838) and Ibn Abi
Shayba (d. 235/849), cite a similar statement attributed to Ibn
Masctid by the link: Abut Ishaq al-SabilC (cAmr b. cAbd Allah, d.
126-9/743-6) - Abiu al-Ahwas (cAwf b. Malik b. Nadla, d. ca.
80/688). Note however that when the reporter from Abui Ishaq is
not his grandson Isradil (d. 160-2/776-8), but Sufyan (al-Thawri ?)
then the isnad of it ends with Abut al-Ahwas, i.e. it is not attributed
to Ibn Mascuid.l21
Another expression of the gradual rise of the obligatory nature
of zakdt, is a statement reported from the Sixth Shici Imam, Jacfar
al-Sadiq (d. 148/765) which says that whoever holds out one qfrl.t
of the zakdt is neither a mu'min (believer) nor a muslim.122 Another
Shici source associates the name of cAll through a family tradition
of al-Sadiq (can dba'ihi) with a prophetical saying that zakat is the
arch (qantara)of Islam.'23 Note, however, that almost the same say-
ing was attributed to the Prophet through Abui al-Dardad,'24 as well
as reported as Qatada's own statement in reference to Qur'an
XLI:7.'25 From the group of other statements in which al-Sadiq
urged people to pay zakdt, note especially the one in which he says
that anyone who holds out may as well die as a Jew or a Chris-
tian.'26 Finally, to Kister's observation that the main reasoning
behind the Shici position concerning the controversy over the pay-
ment of zakdt to Abui Bakr and subsequent Muslim rulers was that
the legal authority after the Prophet passed to the Shfic Imams,'27
must be added a parallel debate which seems to have prevailed
among Sunni scholars of the early second century around the ques-

120 Abui Yuisuf, p. 80.

121 Abii 'Ubayd, Kitabal-Amwdl,Cairo 1353/1934, pp. 354-5; Ibn Abi Shayba,
III, 114.
122
Majlisi, XCIII, 11, quoting Qummi's Tafstr.
123
Majlisi, XCIII, 15, quoting Tiisi's Amadlf
124 Bayhaqi, Shucab, III, 195-6.
125'Abd al-Razzaq, Tafsfr, 125(b).
126
Majlisl, XCIII, 20. For other statements by al-$adiq, see also Majlisi,
XCIII, 18-22, 29; and Tu-si's (d. 460/1067), Amdli, Najaf 1965, II, 304-5.
127 Kister, p. 40, n. 22.
112 SULIMAN BASHEAR

tion whether zakdt should be paid to the ruler irrespective of his per-
sonal conduct of the view concerning the legitimacy of his rule.'28

* * *

To recapitulate, the enquiry conducted above shows that, as

presented by Arabic lexical sources, the word zakdt conveys the
sense of a payment due on property in order to purify it and, hence,
cause for it to be blessed and multiply. A cross-examination of
cognate words from most of the languages current in the area in
pre-Islamic times, shows that the meanings of purification and
examption of taxes were the main ones conveyed by them. There
is even enough evidence for a use in the sense of being not guilty
in Phoenician, Syriac, Imperial Aramaic as well as in certain Old
Testament and Talmudic occurrences parallel to the notion, over-
whelmingly attested in the Qur'an and other Muslim sources that
zakdt (sadaqa) was paid to the Prophet by sinners in return for his
prayer and supplication so that they may be purified. While such
evidence does not allow for pointing to zakdt as a loan word from
Judaism, Christianity or any other religious culture in particular,
and though no affinity between it and any other Semitic cognate
word was explicitly recognized or even hinted at in the Muslim
sources, note must be made of the fact that the order to pay zakdt
in several Qur)anic verses, like II:43 and 110, comes in contexts
where the Children of Israel were the ones addressed by it. There
is also a strong exegetical current which presents Qur'an IX:34 as
referring to "the People of Scripture". We have also seen that these
two facts basically did not cause embarrassment to early Muslim
scholars.
The notion that zakdt in its pre-institutional phase in early Islam
was applied as a payment aimed to purify sinners is predominant
in the narrative exagesis on Qur'an IX: 103, though there is a wide
disagreement concerning the actual "historical" occasion of its
revelation and the people involved. In any case, the perception that
it was an exclusive role of the Prophet to perform the purification
prayer on behalf of the paying sinners was behind the reported

128 This is clear fromn the list of Successors quoted by Ibn Abi
Shayba as
holding the view that zakdtshould be paid to the rulers in any case (manqdlatudfa'u
l-zakdtuild I-sultdnt)as against those who gave a concession (rukhsa)for not paying
it in certain cases. Ibn Abi Shayba, III, 156-8.
 ZAKAT 113

refusal of certain tribes to comply with the same order under Abui
Bakr. To this traditional core, the information that 'Umar
intervened on behalf of the rebels was added a notion which occurs
in a certain current of interpretingQur'an IX:34 as well. However,
our investigation reveals that other second century elaborations
were also made in the form of traditionsbearing the names ofJabir,
Anas, Ibn cUmar and others which aimed at establishing the pay-
ment of zakatas one of the criteria for defining who is a Muslim
upon whom war should not be waged, and did not originally stem
from the core of reports on actual cases of refusal to pay zakdt
during the riddawars.

Jerusalem