Regarding the legal guidelines for the timing of the obligatory charitable contribution known as Zakat in Islam, 95% of contemporary scholars are providing the public with guidance that is both incorrect and practically unfeasible. Even though the arguments they use do not make sense to their own logic, they still continue to teach them. When a person earns a large amount of money on a specific day, the right way is to pay the charity due on it immediately. However, scholars from different groups—including Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Salafi—say that you do not have to pay Zakat as soon as you earn that money. Instead, they say you must wait and see if that money remains with you for a whole year. The moment wealth bestowed by God comes into one’s possession, it is the prescribed practice to give Zakat in order to purify it. Instead, making people wait for a year completely ruins the real purpose of this duty.
According to this one-year time frame, if a person acquires a significant amount of wealth today, and by the same date next year only half of that amount remains, then it is sufficient for him to pay Zakat only on the remaining portion.The calculation is made only on what is left after all their expenses during the year. Even when someone inherits a house and land after their father passes away, these groups of scholars say that charity should only be given after a year has passed. According to this law, even if a person spends all their massive wealth within a year, and even if they lived in great luxury throughout that year, they are not considered sinners under religious law for not paying Zakat. All these statements go completely against the real spirit of charity.
Against this view, the noble rule says that Zakat must be paid immediately on the very day you get the money has been supported by some of the Prophet’s Companions (Sahabah), their Successors (Tabi’un), the scholars from the Prophet’s family (*Ahl al-Bayt*), and scholars like Imam Dawud al-Zahiri, who focus on the direct and literal meaning of the texts. Usually, when someone explains an authentic law to the public, instead of looking at the original sources, people simply ask, “Why are you saying something new that goes against what so many famous Imams have said?” However, this view of paying Zakat immediately is not new; it is a progressive way of thinking that has existed since the very beginning of Islam. This is confirmed in the book *Subul al-Salam*:
ودل الحديث على أنه لا زكاة في المال حتى يحول عليه الحول وهو قول الجماهير وفيه خلاف لجماعة من الصحابة والتابعين وبعض الآل وداود فقالوا إنه لا يشترط الحول لإطلاق حديث في الرقة ربع العشر.
“It shows that there is no Zakat on wealth until a year passes over it, which is the opinion of the majority. However, a group of the Companions, the Successors, some of the Prophet’s family, and Dawud disagreed with this. They said that the passing of a year is not a condition because of the general nature of the Hadith about silver, which requires a quarter of a tenth.” A group of the Sahabah, Tabi’un, Ahl al-Bayt scholars, and Dawud—may Allah have mercy on him—completely rejected the condition of waiting for a year. Since there are teachings where the Prophet only decided the percentages of Zakat (like this much Zakat for that much silver), the correct answer is that there is no need to wait for a year.
By following the opinion of ninety-five percent of the scholars, an injustice is done to the poor. Specifically, Abu Yusuf, one of the main scholars of the Hanafi school of thought, wrote that when a person’s money is about to complete a year—meaning in the very last month—he can gift that money to his wife or a close relative, and then take it back the next month. In this way, they have created tricks under the name of religious law to escape paying Zakat. This turns a good deed that should be done out of fear of God into a trick, similar to how accountants try to cheat on government taxes. They themselves admit that all the Hadiths saying “There is no Zakat on wealth that has not completed a year” are weak. It is shocking that even though scholars from all sides—including Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Ahl al-Hadith—have rejected these narrations as unreliable, they still follow them as law. Sunan al-Tirmidhi records:
سنن الترمذي631 – حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا هَارُونُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ الطَّلْحِيُّ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «مَنْ اسْتَفَادَ مَالًا فَلَا زَكَاةَ عَلَيْهِ، حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِ» وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ سَرَّاءَ بِنْتِ نَبْهَان. وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ ضَعِيفٌ فِي الْحَدِيثِ، ضَعَّفَهُ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ، وَعَلِيُّ بْنُ الْمَدِينِيِّ، وَغَيْرُهُمَا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ وَهُوَ كَثِيرُ الْغَلَطِ.
“Sunan al-Tirmidhi (631): Yahya bin Musa narrated to us, Harun bin Salih al-Talhi narrated to us, saying: Abdur Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam narrated to us, from his father, from Ibn Umar, who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: ‘Whoever gets wealth, there is no Zakat on it until a year passes over it with his Lord.’ And on this topic, there is also a narration from Sarra bint Nabhan. Abdur Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam is weak in Hadith; he was weakened by Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ali bin al-Madini, and others among the people of Hadith, and he makes many mistakes.” In books like Tirmidhi, this is narrated from Ibn Umar, through Zayd bin Aslam and his son Abdur Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam. Regarding this Abdur Rahman, Imam Tirmidhi himself mentioned that he is very weak in the science of Hadith, that he was rejected by great masters like Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ali ibn al-Madini, and that he makes many mistakes.
وقال البخاري وأبو حاتم: ضعفه علي بن المديني جدا
“Al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim said: Ali bin al-Madini weakened him severely.”
وقال أبو داود: أولاد زيد بن أسلم كلهم ضعيف وأمثلهم عبد الله وقال أيضاً: أنا لا أحدث عن عبد الرحمن، وعبد الله أمثل منه وقال النسائي: ضعيف وقال خالد بن خداش: قال لي الدراوردي ومعن وعامة أهل المدينة: لا ترد عن عبد الرحمن أنه كان لا يدري ما يقول وقال أبو زرعۃ ضعیف وقال ابو حاتم لیس بقوی فی الحدیث کان فی نفسه صالحا وفی الحدیث واهیا و قال ابن حبان كان يقلب الاخبار وھو لا يَعلم حتى كثر ذلك في روايته من رفع المراسيل واسناد وقال ابن سعيد كان كثير الحديث ضعيفا جدا
“Abu Dawud said: All the children of Zayd bin Aslam are weak, and the best of them is Abdullah. He also said: I do not narrate from Abdur Rahman, and Abdullah is better than him. Al-Nasa’i said: He is weak. Khalid bin Khidash said: Al-Darawardi, Ma’n, and the general people of Medina said to me: Do not take narrations from Abdur Rahman, because he did not know what he was saying. Abu Zur’ah said: He is weak. Abu Hatim said: He is not strong in Hadith; he was a good person himself but weak in Hadith. Ibn Hibban said: He used to mix up the narrations without realizing it until it happened too much in his reports, making disconnected reports sound connected. Ibn Sa’id said: “He narrated many Hadiths but was extremely weak.” Abu Dawud says all of Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd’s brothers are weak. Imam al-Nasa’i and Abu Zur’ah state that he is weak, and Abu Hatim adds that he is not strong in the science of Hadith. Ibn Hibban remarks that he mixes up Hadiths, which is why it is best to leave him alone. Ibn Sa’d notes that though he narrated many Hadiths, they are completely weak.
وقال ابن خزيمة ليس هو ممن يحتج أهل العلم بحديثه لسوء حفظه وقال الساجي ثنا الربيع ثنا الشافعي قال قيل لعبد الرحمن بن زيد حدثك أبوك عن جدك أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم قال أن سفينة نوح طافت بالبيت وصلت خلف المقام ركعتين قال نعم قال الساجي وهو منكر الحديث وقال الطحاوي حديثه عند أهل العلم
“Ibn Khuzaymah said: He is not someone whose Hadith the scholars use as proof because of his bad memory. He create and tell that this was told by t Mohammed (saw) for example Al-Saji said: Al-Rabi’ narrated to us, al-Shafi’i narrated to us, saying: It was said to Abdur Rahman bin Zayd, ‘Did your father tell you from your grandfather that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said that Noah’s ark went around the Kaaba and prayed two units of prayer behind the Maqam?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ Al-Saji said: His Hadith is rejected. Al-Tahawi said: “His Hadith is considered extremely weak by the scholars.” Ibn Khuzaymah states that Hadith experts do not accept him as proof and that his memory is bad. Al-Saji states that his Hadiths are rejected, adding that he is the main reason behind many made-up stories blamed on the Prophet, like the story that Noah’s ark went around the Kaaba and prayed two units of prayer behind Maqam Ibrahim. Imam al-Tahawi states that his Hadiths are at the absolute bottom of weakness.
وقال الجوزجاني أولاد زيد ضعفاء وقال الحاكم وأبو نعيم روى عن أبيه أحاديث موضوعة وقال ابن الجوزي أجمعوا على ضعفه
“Al-Juzajani said: The children of Zayd are weak. Al-Hakim and Abu Nu’aym said: He narrated made-up Hadiths from his father. Ibn al-Jawzi said: Everyone agrees that he is weak.” Al-Juzajani says all of Zayd’s children are weak, and al-Hakim and Abu Nu’aym state that he narrated many made-up Hadiths from his father. For example, he is the narrator of the Hadith claiming that the Prophet said Adam saw “La ilaha illallah” written on one side of the Throne and “Muhammadur Rasoolullah” on the other. Ibn al-Jawzi notes that everyone agrees on his weakness. They have criticized this Abdur Rahman as completely untrustworthy, having a bad memory, and turning reports upside down. It is not just one or two scholars who rejected him; a very large group refused to accept him. Building a law like the “one-year rule” that hurts the poor based on the words of such a weak narrator is a huge step backward for the Islamic economic system. All of this is taken from a book by Ibn Hajar.
The second Hadith is found in Sunan Ibn Majah:
سنن ابن ماجه1792 – حَدَّثَنَا نَصْرُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الْجَهْضَمِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا شُجَاعُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ، حَدَّثَنَا حَارِثَةُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ – صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – يَقُولُ: “لَا زَكَاةَ فِي مَالٍ، حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ”
“Sunan Ibn Majah (1792): Nasr bin Ali al-Jahdami narrated to us, Shuja’ bin al-Walid narrated to us, Harithah bin Muhammad narrated to us, from Amrah, from Aisha, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, say: ‘There is no Zakat on wealth until a year passes over it.'” In this chain of narrators, the person named Harithah ibn Muhammad is weak. Ibn Hibban, in his book *Al-Majruhin* (The Weak Narrators), puts his name on the list and writes: كَانَ مِمَّن كثر وهمه وفحش خطؤه تَرَكه أَحْمَد وَيحيى “He was someone who had too many illusions and made huge mistakes; Ahmad and Yahya abandoned him.” Similarly, Yahya ibn Ma’in said that Harithah is weak. Other scholars say his Hadith is rejected. All these criticisms are found in the book *Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil*. Furthermore, in the book *Al-Kamil fi Du’afa al-Rijal*, the Hadith scholars say:
* قال سمعت يحيى بن معين يقول حارثة بن أبي الرجال ضعيف ليس يكتب حديثه حدثنا الجنيدي ثنا البخاري قال لم يعتد أحمد بحارثة بن أبي الرجال وقال البخاري حارثة بن أبي الرجال مدني منكر الحديث وقال النسائي حارثة بن أبي الرجال متروك الحديث
“He said: I heard Yahya bin Ma’in say: Harithah bin Abi al-Rijal is weak and his Hadith should not be written down. Al-Junaydi narrated to us, al-Bukhari narrated to us, saying: Ahmad did not consider Harithah bin Abi al-Rijal reliable. Al-Bukhari said: Harithah bin Abi al-Rijal is from Medina and his Hadith is rejected. Al-Nasa’i said: Harithah bin Abi al-Rijal is abandoned.” Imam Bukhari himself added that his Hadiths are rejected.
السنن الكبرى للبيهقي7274 – أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ بِشْرَانَ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ الْفَضْلِ الْقَطَّانُ بِبَغْدَادَ قَالَا أَنْبَأَ أَبُو عَمْرِو عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ السَّمَّاكِ ثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي دَاوُدَ، ثَنَا أَبُو بَدْرٍ شُجَاعُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ، ثَنَا حَارِثَةُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا، قَالَتْ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ:”لَا زَكَاةَ فِي مَالٍ حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ”.وَكَذَلِكَ رَوَاهُ أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ وَهُرَيْمُ بْنُ سُفْيَانَ وَأَبُو كُدَيْنَةَ عَنْ حَارِثَةَ مَرْفُوعًا. وَرَوَاهُ الثَّوْرِيُّ عَنْ حَارِثَةَ مَوْقُوفًا عَلَى عَائِشَةَ، وَحَارِثَةُ لَا يُحْتَجُّ بِخَبَرِهِ، وَالِاعْتِمَادُ فِي ذَلِكَ عَلَى الْآثَارِ الصَّحِيحَةِ فِيهِ عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَعُثْمَانَ بْنِ عَفَّانَ وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ وَغَيْرِهِمْ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ.
“Al-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi (7274): … ‘There is no Zakat on wealth until a year passes over it.’ … Harithah’s report cannot be used as proof, and reliance in this matter is upon the authentic reports from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Uthman bin Affan, Abdullah bin Umar, and others.” In this Hadith too, Harithah is the narrator. After sharing it, Imam al-Bayhaqi himself said that Harithah’s reports cannot be used as proof, so this Hadith should not be used as an argument either. Furthermore, another Hadith on this topic is found in al-Daraqutni:
سنن الدارقطني1914 – حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ الْخَضِرِ الْمُعَدَّلُ بِمَكَّةَ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ يُونُسَ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ الْأَسَدِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا حَسَّانُ بْنُ سِيَاهٍ عَنْ ثَابِتٍ عَنْ أَنَسٍ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- قَالَ «لَيْسَ فِي مَالٍ زَكَاةٌ حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ».
“Sunan al-Daraqutni (1914): … from Hassan bin Siyah, from Thabit, from Anas that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: ‘There is no Zakat on wealth until a year passes over it.'” In this Hadith, Hassan bin Siyah is completely weak. Ibn hibban say about him in his book Al majruheen that he makes up Hadiths using the names of reliable people and also said One of the Hadiths he narrated claims that the Prophet commanded marrying women who will have many children. But the question is: who besides Allah knows which woman will have many children? Moreover, in the book *Lisan al-Mizan*, Ibn Hajar shares what scholars said about him:
– حسان بن سياه ضعفه بن عدي والدارقطني – وقال بن حبان يأتي عن الأثبات بما لا يشبه حديثهم وساق له بن عدي ثمانية عشر حديثاً مناكير انتهى وعامتها لا يتابع عليها والضعف بين على حديثه وقال البزار روى عن حميد عن أنس أحاديث لم يتابع عليها – وقال أبو نعيم الأصبهاني ضعيف روى عن ثابت مناكير
“Hassan bin Siyah was weakened by Ibn Adi and al-Daraqutni. Ibn Hibban said: He narrates from reliable people things that do not match their actual Hadiths. Ibn Adi listed eighteen rejected Hadiths from him… Al-Bazzar said: He narrated unconfirmed Hadiths from Anas. Abu Nu’aym said: He is weak.” In the book *Al-Kamil fi Du’afa al-Rijal*, Ibn Adi lists all of his weak Hadiths, and they are all rejected. Imam al-Bazzar says he narrated many weak Hadiths through Anas and Thabit. Because he makes up Hadiths using reliable names, his reports must not be accepted. They also show another Hadith from Sunan al-Daraqutni, but in that chain, two narrators are unknown, daarkutni said in this name there is no person. meaning they do not appear in any Hadith book.
سنن الدارقطني1910 – حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ صَالِحٍ الْحَلَبِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ الْوَرَّاقُ مجهول الحال حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو التَّقِيِّ هِشَامُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ضعيف عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ عَنْ نَافِعٍ عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- « لَا زَكَاةَ فِي مَالِ امْرِئٍ حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ ». رَوَاهُ مُعْتَمِرٌ وَغَيْرُهُ عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ مَوْقُوفًا.
“Sunan al-Daraqutni (1910): … Sa’id bin Uthman al-Warraq—whose status is unknown—narrated to us… from Ismail—who is weak… ‘There is no Zakat on the wealth of a person until a year passes over it.'” Regarding Sa’id bin Uthman al-Warraq, Imam al-Daraqutni himself stated that his status is unknown. There is also a Hadith in Abu Dawud:
سُنَنُ أَبِي دَاوُد1573 – حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ الْمَهْرِيُّ… وَلَيْسَ فِي مَالٍ زَكَاةٌ حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ. إِلَّا أَنَّ جَرِيرًا، قَالَ ابْنُ وَهْبٍ «يَزِيدُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: لَيْسَ فِي مَالٍ زَكَاةٌ حَتَّى يَحُولَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَوْلُ»
“Sunan Abi Dawud (1573): … ‘And there is no Zakat on wealth until a year passes over it.’ Except that Jarir, as Ibn Wahb said, adds to the Hadith from the Prophet: ‘There is no Zakat on wealth until a year passes over it.'” In this Hadith, the narrator himself says he does not know if this statement comes from the Prophet or from Ali.
Those who argue that Zakat is not due on any earned wealth until a full year passes are not consistent in their rules. This is clearly shown by the rule about buried treasure. All scholars agree that when someone finds buried treasure, like a kilogram of gold in a well or under a building, they must pay Zakat on it immediately on that very day. If scholars use the Hadith saying “There is no Zakat until a year passes” to make rules for other wealth, why do they ignore the simple fact that buried treasure is also newly acquired wealth? If they say buried treasure is an exception to the rule, they must show clear proof for that exception. Since they say the one-year rule does not apply to buried treasure, it is clear that they themselves do not fully accept the one-year Hadith, and they know it is weak. In reality, whether it is buried treasure or any other income, the correct and logical rule is that Zakat must be paid as soon as you receive it.
If you look for this one-year rule in books of Islamic law (Fiqh), you will only find a lot of confusion. Looking at a person’s daily income, it is clear that no one can actually practice this one-year law. For example, suppose a worker who gets daily wages earns one thousand rupees every day starting January 1st. By the end of the year, he should have earned 365,000 rupees. But after spending on food and basic needs, let’s say he has 200,000 rupees left at the end of the year. Those scholars say he must pay Zakat on this entire 200,000 rupees. But logically, has a full year passed for all that money? Absolutely not. Only the first thousand rupees earned on January 1st will be a year old by the next January. The money earned on January 2nd will only be a year old on January 2nd of the next year, and so on. How can money that came in late December, or yesterday, be counted as having completed a year? If we follow this one-year rule strictly, a person would have to keep 365 separate accounts to pay Zakat, calculating exactly when each day’s money becomes a year old. Since next year’s money will also start coming in and mixing with it, it is impossible to do this in real life.
Not only that, but they have also written another confusing law in their books. They say that if a person has 100,000 rupees on January 1st, and because of expenses it drops to 40,000 during the year, but then more money comes in so that by the next January he has 100,000 rupees again, he must pay Zakat on it. Saying the money has completed a year just because the starting and ending amounts are the same makes no sense. The money had decreased in the middle of the year; how could a full year have passed for the new money that came in later? Even a government cannot enforce such a confusing law on its citizens. If a government wanted to collect Zakat this way, they would have to send tax collectors to a daily wage earner’s door 365 days a year, knocking and asking for the Zakat due on whatever money turned a year old that day. Even for monthly salaried workers, they would have to collect Zakat 12 different times a year. There is no record of the Prophet or his Companions ever sending people to knock on doors daily to collect Zakat this way. To cover up these contradictions—just like politicians creating confusing laws to fool people—they make up strange ideas, saying things like, “The one year starts from the day the government comes to collect.” By saying this, they indirectly admit that waiting for a year is not actually necessary. In short, those who teach this illogical one-year rule instead of the simple Zakat system have no real answers to these questions.
Furthermore, there is a religious contradiction in letting a person spend their wealth for a whole year before paying Zakat on it. Allah commands in the Quran, “Take Zakat from their wealth.” Suppose a person receives 100,000 rupees, spends 50,000 rupees on his needs during the year, and pays Zakat only on the remaining 50,000 at the end of the year. Whose wealth was that 50,000 rupees he spent? It was his own, but he spent it without first separating the share that belonged to the poor. He has been living off and enjoying wealth that was not purified. The Prophet Muhammad described Zakat as something that cleanses wealth and called it the “dirt of the people.” We know from history that when his relatives asked for the job of collecting Zakat, the Prophet refused, saying it is the dirt of the people. So, how is it right to say a person can freely spend unpurified wealth for a whole year? If the money we use is to be pure, we must pay Zakat as soon as we receive it. Letting people spend it for a year without purifying it goes against the core idea of purity in Islam.
This one-year argument also fails when we look at the rules for animals. For example, if someone has 120 sheep, they must give one sheep as Zakat. Suppose right when the Zakat collector arrives, a sheep gives birth to a lamb. The scholars say that because the number of sheep has now become 121, the owner must give two sheep as Zakat. In this case, they do not apply the one-year rule. They do not say, “This lamb was just born, it has not completed a year, so we must wait until next year.” Why do they count the lamb immediately at birth, but claim that money must be kept for a whole year? Animals are also a form of wealth, aren’t they? This shows that the rulings they give go completely against their own principles and are full of contradictions. No economics expert in the world has ever suggested such a tax system, and no country uses such laws. Those who teach these confusing rules in the name of religion have no logical answers to these simple questions.