Zakat is a vital pillar of Islamic jurisprudence. A fundamental question frequently arises regarding its fulfillment: if a person pays Zakat on a piece of wealth once, must they continue paying Zakat on it repeatedly every year throughout their lifetime, or is paying it a single time sufficient? This applies particularly to cash, gold, silver, jewelry, and non-movable assets. One school of thought holds that once Zakat is paid on an asset, that wealth becomes fully purified. For instance, if a person possesses 100,000 rupees and pays 2.5% Zakat on it (2,500 rupees), the remaining 97,500 rupees becomes pure and clean. Under this perspective, even if that exact money remains stored with them for fifty years, paying Zakat on it again is no longer obligatory.
However, the majority of contemporary and historical scholars, alongside jurists across various schools of Islamic law, hold the opposite view. They argue that if wealth or jewelry meets or exceeds the minimum threshold (*Nisab*) every year, paying Zakat annually on a recurring basis is a mandatory duty. According to this majority view, if someone owns ten Tolas of gold and pays Zakat on January 1st, then on the same date the following year, they must pay 2.5% Zakat again on the gold’s current value after deducting the previously paid Zakat, and this cycle continues as long as the wealth remains in their possession or until they pass away.
An objective analysis between these two contrasting views is essential to evaluate whether a single Zakat payment suffices or if annual repetition is required, examining the underlying evidence. The first and most critical point in this inquiry is that nowhere in the Quran or the prophetic traditions is there a direct, explicit text stating that wealth upon which Zakat has been paid once must be subjected to Zakat repeatedly in subsequent years.
In the Quranic text, the command regarding Zakat generally appears in an absolute form:
(وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ) — *”And give Zakat.”*
It is an established rule of grammar in any language that when a command is given without a specific condition of repetition or timeframe, fulfilling the action once satisfies the obligation. For example, if someone is told to give a portion of their wealth in charity upon acquiring it, giving charity once satisfies the command. If monthly or annual repetition were intended, specific temporal phrases such as “every year” or “every month” would have been specified. God did not send down explicit wording requiring continuous, repeated annual payments for Zakat.
To illustrate this, consider other religious obligations in Islamic law. If the divine command for fasting had simply been “fast,” a person could satisfy the obligation by fasting just once in their lifetime. However, God defined the specific timeframe by stating that whoever witnesses the month of Ramadan must fast during it. Since Ramadan recurs every year, fasting recurs annually as well. Similarly, while the Quran commands the establishment of prayer in general terms, the Prophet’s practice clarified that five specific prayers are mandatory throughout the day and night, establishing clear time parameters.
By contrast, when examining the Pilgrimage (*Hajj*), the Quran states that Pilgrimage to the House is an obligation for whoever can find a way to it. A person might possess the financial and physical capability to perform Hajj every year, yet the unanimous consensus of the community is that Hajj is mandatory only once in a lifetime. The wisdom behind this principle is illustrated in a tradition recorded in *Sahih Muslim* (Hadith 1337 / 412):
(صحيح مسلم: 1337 – 412: وحدثني زهير بن حرب، حدثنا يزيد بن هارون، أخبرنا الربيع بن مسلم القرشي، عن محمد بن زياد، عن أبي هريرة، قال: خطبنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقال: «أيها الناس قد فرض الله عليكم الحج فحجوا»، فقال رجل: أكل عام يا رسول الله؟ فسكت حتى قالها ثلاثا، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «لو قلت: نعم لوجبت، ولما استطعتم»، ثم قال: «ذروني ما تركتكم، فإنما هلك من كان قبلكم بكثرة سؤالهم واختلافهم على أنبيائهم، فإذا أمرتكم بشيء فأتوا منه ما استطعتم، وإذا نهيتكم عن شيء فدعوه»)
Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) addressed the people, saying: “O people, Allah has made Hajj obligatory upon you, so perform Hajj.” A man asked: “Is it every year, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet remained silent until the man repeated his question three times. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) then said: “If I said yes, it would have become obligatory every year, and you would not have been able to fulfill it.” He then added: “Leave me as I have left you. Those before you were destroyed only due to their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their prophets. When I command you to do something, do as much of it as you can; and when I forbid you from something, avoid it.”
Here, the Prophet referenced past nations who made obligations unnecessarily harsh upon themselves through excessive questioning, such as when the people of Moses asked unnecessary details about the color, age, and characteristics of a cow they were commanded to sacrifice. Under this legal framework, when the general command to “pay Zakat” was given, fulfilling Zakat once on acquired wealth satisfies the obligation. Raising questions as to whether it must be paid again every year until death imposes self-inflicted hardship. Had annual repetition been the law, God and His Messenger would have clearly stated it. In the absence of an explicit text requiring annual repetition, the legal evidence indicates that wealth, once purified, is not subject to recurring Zakat.
It is widely assumed among the public that Zakat is inherently an annual obligation. However, does Zakat function on an annual basis across all categories of wealth defined in Islamic law? For instance, when someone finds buried treasure or minerals (*Rikaz*), the Prophet clarified that a fifth (20%) is due as Zakat. While standard Zakat is 2.5%, finding a treasure worth 100,000 units requires an immediate Zakat payment of 20,000 units. This directive is recorded in *Sahih al-Bukhari* (Hadith 1499).
Under this principle, no scholar of Islamic law claims that this 20% Zakat on buried treasure must be paid again every year. There is total consensus among jurists that Zakat on buried treasure is paid only once, upon its discovery. If someone offers the rational argument that paying 20% annually would exhaust the wealth in five years and is thus exempted for that reason, where is the textual proof for such an exemption? Since the word Zakat is general, on what basis did scholars exclude buried treasure from annual repetition? They did so based on general Islamic legal principles rather than a unique exception. If paying 20% Zakat once on buried treasure satisfies the obligation, why require annual repetition for other forms of wealth assessed at 2.5%? This 20% Zakat rule on buried treasure appears across multiple locations in *Sahih al-Bukhari* (Hadith 1499, 2355, 6912, and 613), and its single-payment nature is undisputed.
Consider also spoil of war (*Ghanimah*). When the Prophet dispatched expeditions and spoils were acquired, a fifth (20%) was remitted to the state, while the remaining 80% was distributed among the combatants. These rulings are detailed across numerous passages in *Sahih al-Bukhari* (including Hadith 53, 56, 87, 523, 1398, 3095, 3510, 4368, 4369, 556, 6179, 7266, 7500, and 7566). Out of a spoil worth one million, the 200,000 share was paid only once; no one claimed that this spoil of war was subject to recurring annual Zakat or *Khums* in subsequent years. If a single payment is the baseline for spoils and discovered treasure, applying annual repetition to other assets lacks textual backing.
Furthermore, it is important to reflect on the core philosophy of Zakat’s obligation. When severe warnings were revealed in the Quran regarding those who hoard gold and silver without spending it in the cause of God—describing how their foreheads, flanks, and backs would be branded with heated metal in Hell—the companions became fearful. Umar ibn al-Khattab approached the Prophet to seek clarification on whether storing wealth automatically triggers this punishment. Part of the Prophet’s explanation, as recorded in *Sahih Muslim*, states:
(ثُمَّ قَالَ لَنَا «إِنَّ هَذِهِ الصَّدَقَاتِ إِنَّمَا هِيَ أَوْسَاخُ النَّاسِ ، وَإِنَّهَا لَا تَحِلُّ لِمُحَمَّدٍ ، وَلَا لِآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ» وَقَالَ أَيْضًا : ثُمَّ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ «ادْعُوا لِي مَحْمِيَةَ بْنَ جَزْءٍ» ، وَهُوَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي أَسَدٍ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ اسْتَعْمَلَهُ عَلَى الْأَخْمَاسِ)
The Prophet clarified that God ordained Zakat to purify the remainder of one’s wealth. Just as a garment washed once does not need to be rewashed repeatedly unless it becomes soiled again, wealth from which Zakat has been deducted becomes fully pure and lawful.
If a person has 100,000 rupees and pays 2,500 rupees in Zakat, the remaining 97,500 rupees becomes pure. Keeping this purified money into the following year in the exact same state provides no rational or scriptural justification for washing (paying Zakat on) it again. If new income or additional wealth is gained in the following year, Zakat applies exclusively to that new addition. Because the original wealth was purified through the prior Zakat payment, it should be deducted, leaving only the newly acquired wealth to be calculated. If someone owned 100 Tolas of gold, paid Zakat on it, and their holdings grew to 200 Tolas the next year, Zakat would apply only to the additional 100 Tolas, since the obligation on the first 100 Tolas was already fulfilled. The prophetic texts indicate that Zakat is a single act of purification for a given sum of wealth.
Given that Zakat purifies wealth, what arguments are presented by those who hold that Zakat is mandatory on the same wealth every year? When their arguments are evaluated in terms of narrative chains (*Isnad*) and textual contents (*Matn*), the supporting traditions are either weak in chain or contain textual contradictions that conflict with established Islamic principles.
Their primary argument relies on a tradition concerning the wealth of orphans. When a child is orphaned upon their father’s death, the father’s estate becomes the child’s property, managed by a guardian (*Wali*) as a trust until the child reaches maturity. The Quran commands that once orphans reach maturity, their property must be handed over to them in the presence of witnesses.
The tradition cited to justify annual Zakat on orphan wealth is recorded in *Sunan at-Tirmidhi* (Hadith 641):
(سنن الترمذي: 641 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا إِبراهيمُ بْنُ مُوسَى قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنِ الْمُثَنَّى بْنِ الصَّبَّاحِ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَطَبَ النَّاسَ فَقَالَ: «أَلَا مَنْ وَلِيَ يَتِيمًا لَهُ مَالٌ فَلْيَتَّجِرْ فِيهِ، وَلَا يَتْرُكْهُ حَتَّى تَأْكُلَهُ الصَّدَقَةُ» : «وَإِنَّمَا رُوِيَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ، وَفِي إِسْنَادِهِ مَقَالٌ، لِأَنَّ الْمُثَنَّى بْنَ الصَّبَّاحِ يُضَعَّفُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ»، وَرَوَى بَعْضُهُمْ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ، أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ ذَكَرَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ)
“Lo! Whoever is the guardian of an orphan who possesses wealth, let him trade with it and not leave it idle lest Zakat consume it (deplete it).” Proponents argue that because Zakat applies every year, an orphan’s uninvested wealth would eventually be consumed entirely by Zakat payments.
This reasoning contains multiple flaws. First, a child remains an orphan under Islamic law until reaching maturity, which occurs at around 15 years of age. If Zakat of 2.5% were paid annually on an uninvested sum of 100,000, the cumulative Zakat paid over 15 years would total around 30% to 35% of the initial capital (since Zakat is assessed on the diminishing remaining balance each year). After 15 years, over 65% of the principal would remain intact. It is logically inaccurate to claim that Zakat would “consume” or wipe out the entire estate. For Zakat to wipe out an estate within that timeframe, Zakat would need to be assessed monthly, an idea universally rejected.
Second, an orphan’s wealth is held by the guardian as a fiduciary trust. A guardian is not permitted to risk trust assets in speculative business ventures where losses can occur. Trade carries risk. If a guardian invests an orphan’s capital in a new venture and the money is lost, what response can be given when the orphan matures? Saying “I was trying to grow your wealth, but it was lost” would represent a severe injustice to the orphan. Islamic law, which strictly mandates the preservation of an orphan’s property, does not direct guardians to expose such assets to business risks.
If the orphan’s father left behind an established, running business, the guardian may maintain it as an ongoing concern. However, liquidating cash, property, or jewelry to launch a new and uncertain business venture exposes the orphan’s wealth to unjustifiable risk. Taking on the risk of losing 100% of the capital to avoid a minor percentage of Zakat runs counter to Islamic legal principles.
From the standpoint of Hadith criticism (*Ilm al-Hadith*), the chain of this tradition is unreliable. Imam at-Tirmidhi explicitly stated after recording the Hadith that its chain is subject to criticism because the narrator Al-Muthanna ibn as-Sabbah is weak in Hadith criticism.
This tradition is also recorded in *Sunan ad-Daraqutni* (Hadith 1993) through the same route of Al-Muthanna ibn as-Sabbah:
(سنن الدارقطني: 1993 – حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَحْمَدَ الْمِصْرِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ غَلِيبٍ الْأَزْدِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ عُفَيْرٍ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ أَيُّوبَ عَنِ الْمُثَنَّى بْنِ الصَّبَّاحِ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- قَامَ يَخْطُبُ النَّاسَ فَقَالَ: «مَنْ وَلِيَ يَتِيمًا لَهُ مَالٌ فَلْيَتَّجِرْ لَهُ وَلَا يَتْرُكْهُ حَتَّى تَأْكُلَهُ الصَّدَقَةُ»)
Regarding Al-Muthanna ibn as-Sabbah, Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani compiled evaluations from major authorities of Hadith criticism in *Tahdhib at-Tahdhib* (Vol. 5, p. 58):
(تهذيب التهذيب: 58 – “د ت ق – المثنى” بن الصباح اليماني الأبناوي أبو عبد الله قال عمرو بن علي كان يحيى وعبد الرحمن لا يحدثان عنه وقال عبد الله بن أحمد عن أبيه لا يساوي حديثه شيئا مضطرب الحديث قال إسحاق بن منصور عن بن معين ضعيف وقال بن أبي حاتم سألت أبي أبا زرعة عنه فقالا لين وقال الجوزجاني لا يقنع بحديثه وقال الترمذي يضعف في الحديث وقال النسائي ليس بثقة وقال في موضع آخر متروك الحديث وقال بن عدي له حديث صالح عن عمرو بن شعيب وقد ضعفه الأئمة المتقدمون والضعف على حديثه بين. قال بن سعد وله أحاديث وهو ضعيف)
Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan and Abd ar-Rahman ibn Mahdi refrained from narrating from him. Abdullah, son of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, reported that his father said Al-Muthanna’s traditions are worth nothing and that he is unstable in transmission (*Mudtarib al-Hadith*). Yahya ibn Ma’in declared him weak (*Da’if*). Abu Hatim and Abu Zur’ah described him as soft (*Lin*). Al-Juzajani stated his traditions cannot serve as proof. Imam an-Nasa’i declared him unaligned with trustworthy narrators (*Laysa bi-Thiqah*) and elsewhere categorized him as abandoned (*Matruk al-Hadith*). Ibn Adi, Ibn Sa’ad, Ad-Daraqutni, and Ibn al-Jawzi similarly declared him weak. With such extensive criticism from leading scholars, transmissions through Al-Muthanna ibn as-Sabbah cannot serve as legal proof.
Another chain for this tradition appears in *Sunan ad-Daraqutni* (Hadith 1994) and *Al-Mu’jam al-Awsat* by at-Tabarani (Hadith 998) via Mandal ibn Ali:
(سنن الدارقطني: 1994 – حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُحَمَّدِ بْنُ صَاعِدٍ حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ الْعَطَّارُ بِالْكُوفَةِ حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي حَدَّثَنَا مَنْدَلٌ عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ الشَّيْبَانِيِّ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- : «احْفَظُوا الْيَتَامَى فِي أَمْوَالِهِمْ لَا تَأْكُلُهَا الزَّكَاةُ)
(المعجم الأوسط: 998 – حدثنا أحمد قال حدثنا عبد العزيز قال حدثنا مندل بن علي عن سليمان عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده عن النبي قال: “ابتغوا في أموال اليتامى لا تأكلها الزكاة”)
The biographical evaluations for Mandal ibn Ali in *Tahdhib at-Tahdhib* (Vol. 5, p. 518) record the following:
(تهذيب التهذيب: 518 – دق – مندل بن علي العنزي أبو عبد الله الكوفي وقال عبد الله بن أحمد عن أبيه: ضعيف الحديث. وقال أحمد بن أبي مريم عن ابن معين: ليس به بأس يكتب حديثه. قال ابن أبي خيثمة عن ابن معين: ليس بشيء. وقال عثمان الدارمي عن ابن معين: لا بأس به، وقال الدوري عن ابن معين: حبان ومندل ضعيفان. وأصحابنا يحيى بن معين وعلي بن المديني وغيرهما من نظرائهم يضعفان في الحديث وكان خيراً فاضلاً صدوقاً وهو ضعيف الحديث. ضعيف الحديث وكان البخاري أدخل مندلاً في الضعفاء.وسئل أبو زرعة عن مندل فقال: لين الحديث، وقال النسائي: ضعيف.وقال ابن عدي: له غرائب وأفراد، وهو ممكن يكتب حديثه.وقال علي بن الحسين بن الجنيد: سئل ابن معين عنه فقال: ليس بذاك القوي.وقال الجوزجاني: واهي الحديث، وقال الحاكم أبو أحمد: ليس بالقوي عندهم.وقال الساجي: ليس بثقة يروي مناكير، وقال لي ابن مثنى: كان عبد الرحمن بن مهدي لا يحدث عنه.وقال ابن قانع والدارقطني: ضعيف.وقال ابن حبان: كان ممن يرفع المراسيل ويسند الموقوفات من سوء حفظه فاستحق الترك.وقال الطحاوي: ليس من أهل التثبت في الرواية بشيء، ولا يحتج به)
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Ma’in, Ali ibn al-Madini, Imam al-Bukhari, Abu Zur’ah, An-Nasa’i, Ad-Daraqutni, Al-Juzajani, and Ibn Hibban categorized Mandal ibn Ali as weak, suffering from memory deficiencies, prone to elevating unlinked reports, and unfit to be relied upon as proof. Although he was personally devout, his poor memory renders his transmissions discarded.
Furthermore, in *Al-Mu’jam al-Awsat* by at-Tabarani (Hadith 4152), this subject matter is transmitted through Al-Furat ibn Muhammad:
(المعجم الأوسط: 4152 – حدثنا علي قال نا الفرات بن محمد القيرواني قال نا شجرة بن عيسى المعافري عن عبد الملك بن أبي كريمة عن عمارة بن غزية عن يحيى بن سعيد عن أنس بن مالك قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اتجروا في أموال اليتامى لا تأكلها الزكاة لم يرو هذا الحديث عن يحيى إلا عمارة ولا عن عمارة إلا عبد الملك ولا عن عبد الملك إلا شجرة ولا يروى عن أنس إلا بهذا الإسناد)
Hafiz Ibn Hajar noted regarding Al-Furat ibn Muhammad al-Qayrawani in *Lisan al-Mizan* (Entry 1319):
(لسان الميزان: 1319 – “فُرَات” بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ فُرَاتِ العَبْدِي القَيْرَوَانِي وَقَالَ ابْنُ حَارِثٍ كَانَ يَغْلِبُ عَلَيْهِ الرِّوَايَةُ وَالجَمْعُ وَمَعْرِفَةُ الأَخْبَارِ، وَكَانَ ضَعِيفاً مُتَّهَماً بِالكَذِبِ)
Ibn Harith stated that Al-Furat ibn Muhammad was weak and accused of fabrication (*Mutttaham bi-l-Kadhib*). Consequently, all narrations suggesting that Zakat consumes an orphan’s wealth are weak and unestablished through reliable transmission chains.
The second argument presented by proponents of recurring annual Zakat relies on a report concerning Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, the Prophet’s uncle. The report states that when Umar was sent to collect Zakat, Abbas withheld payment, whereupon the Prophet remarked that Abbas had already paid his Zakat two years in advance.
This argument contains legal and textual inconsistencies. First, collecting Zakat two years in advance conflicts with standard legal principles because future wealth and a person’s future financial standing belong to the realm of the unseen (*Ghayb*), known only to God. The Quran states that no soul knows what it will earn tomorrow. Assessing and collecting Zakat today on uncertain future wealth does not align with general legal principles. If wealth increases in the future year, the calculation would be inaccurate; if wealth is destroyed, Zakat would have been collected on non-existent assets.
Second, even if this report were accepted as authentic, it does not prove that Zakat is paid twice on the same wealth. Rather, it describes advance payment for a distinct, upcoming period of new earnings.
When examining the chain of this narration, Sunan ad-Daraqutni (Hadith 2034) records it through Al-Hasan ibn Umarah:
(سنن الدارقطني: 2034 – حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ حَدَّثَنَا وَلِيدُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ زِيَادٍ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ عُمَارَةَ عَنِ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ مُوسَى بْنِ طَلْحَةَ عَنْ طَلْحَةَ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- قَالَ « يَا عُمَرُ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ عَمَّ الرَّجُلِ صِنْوُ أَبِيهِ إِنَّا كُنَّا احْتَجْنَا إِلَى مَالٍ فَتَعَجَّلْنَا مِنَ الْعَبَّاسِ صَدَقَةَ مَالِهِ لِسَنَتَيْنِ ». اخْتَلَفُوا عَلَى الْحَكَمِ فِي إِسْنَادِهِ وَالصَّحِيحُ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ مُرْسَلٌ)
The chain contains Al-Hasan ibn Umarah. Tahdhib at-Tahdhib (Vol. 5, p. 532) details severe criticism regarding him:
(تهذيب التهذيب: 532 – خت ت ق البخاري في التعاليق والترمذي وابن ماجة الحسن بن عمارة بن المضرب البجلي قال النضر بن شميل عن شعبة: أفادني الحسن بن عمارة سبعين حديثاً عن الحكم فلم يكن لها أصل.وقال الطيالسي قال شعبة: ائت جرير بن حازم فقل له لا يحل لك أن تروي عن الحسن بن عمارة فإنه يكذب. وقال أبو بكر المروزي عن أحمد: متروك الحديث، وکذا قال أبو طالب عنه، وزاد: قلت له كان له هوى؟ قال: ولكن كان منكر الحديث، وأحاديثه موضوعة لا يكتب حديثه، وقال مرة ليس بشيء.وقال بن معين: لا يكتب حديثه، وقال مرة: ضعيف، وقال مرة: ليس حديثه بشيء.وقال عبد الله بن المديني عن أبيه: ما أحتاج إلى شعبة فيه أمره أبين من ذلك، قيل له كان يغلط؟ فقال أي شيء كان يغلط كان يضع.وقال أبو حاتم ومسلم والنسائي والدارقطني: متروك الحديث.وقال الساجي: ضعيف متروك أجمع أهل الحديث على ترك حديثه.وقال الجوزجاني: ساقط)
Shu’bah stated that Al-Hasan ibn Umarah provided seventy traditions that had no authentic origin, describing him as untruthful. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal declared him abandoned (Matruk al-Hadith) and noted that his reports were fabricated (Mawdu’). Yahya ibn Ma’in, Ibn al-Madini, Muslim, An-Nasa’i, Ad-Daraqutni, and As-Saji unanimously agreed on abandoning his transmissions.
A second chain for this incident appears in Sunan ad-Daraqutni (Hadith 2035) and As-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi through Muhammad ibn Ubayd Allah al-Arzami:
(سنن الدارقطني: 2035 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ عَبْدِ الْخَالِقِ حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ نَائِلَةَ الْأَصْبَهَانِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُغِيرَةِ حَدَّثَنَا النُّعْمَانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ السَّلَامِ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ عَنِ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ مِقْسَمٍ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ:بَعَثَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ عُمَرَ سَاعِيًا – قَالَ – فَأَتَى الْعَبَّاسَ يَطْلُبُ صَدَقَةَ مَالِهِ قَالَ فَأَغْلَظَ لَهُ الْعَبَّاسُ فَخَرَجَ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ ﷺ فَأَخْبَرَهُ قَالَ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ:«إِنَّ الْعَبَّاسَ قَدْ أَسْلَفَنَا زَكَاةَ مَالِهِ الْعَامَ وَالْعَامَ الْمُقْبِلَ»)
The entry for Muhammad ibn Ubayd Allah al-Arzami in Tahdhib at-Tahdhib (Vol. 5, p. 535) reads:
(تهذيب التهذيب: 535 – “ت ق – محمد بن عبيد الله بن أبي سليمان العرزمي قال عبد الله بن أحمد عن أبيه: ترك الناس حديثه وقال الدوري عن ابن معين: ليس بشيء، ولا يكتب حديثه وقال البخاري: تركه ابن المبارك ويحيى وقال النسائي: ليس بثقة ولا يكتب حديثه وقال بن أبي مذعور عن وكيع: كان العرزمي رجلاً صالحاً ذهبت كتبه فكان يحدث حفظاً فمن ذلك أتى بالمناكير. وقال ابن المديني سمعت القطان سألت العرزني فجعل يحدث للحفظ فأتيته بكتاب فجعل لا يحسن القراءة وقال ابن سعد سمع سماعاً كثيراً ودفن كتبه فلما كان بعد ذلك حدث وقد ذهبت كتبه يضعف الناس حديثه لهذا وقال الدارقطني ضعيف الحديث وقال ابن حبان كان رديء الحفظ وذهبت كتبه فجعل يحدث من حفظه فيهم وكثرت المناكير في روايته تركه بن مهدي وابن المبارك والقطان وابن معين وقال أبو حاتم روى عنه شعبة وسليمان على التعجب وهو ضعيف الحديث جدا وقال بن أبي حاتم ترك أبو زرعة قراءة حديثه وقال الحاكم في المدخل متروك الحديث بلا خلاف أعرفه بين أئمة النقل فيه وقال أبو أحمد الحاكم ليس حديثه بالقائم وقال الساجي صدوق منكر الحديث أجمع أهل النقل على ترك حديثه عنده مناكير)
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Ma’in, Al-Bukhari, An-Nasa’i, Ibn al-Mubarak, Al-Qattan, Ibn Mahdi, Ibn Hibban, and Al-Hakim categorized Al-Arzami as severely weak and abandoned. Waki’ noted that although he was a righteous individual, his books were lost, leading him to transmit from an impaired memory, which resulted in rejected narrations (Manakir).
In Sunan ad-Daraqutni (Hadith 2036), both Mandal ibn Ali and Al-Arzami appear together in the chain, combining two weak narrators.
In Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir by at-Tabarani (Hadith 9842) and Al-Mu’jam al-Awsat (Hadith 1000), the chain includes Muhammad ibn Dhakwan, whom Al-Uqayli listed as rejected in transmission (Munkar al-Hadith).
In As-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi (Hadith 7367), although the narrators are trustworthy, Imam al-Bayhaqi pointed out a break in the chain (Irsaal) between Abu al-Bakhtari and Ali ibn Abi Talib, as they never met.
In Sunan ad-Daraqutni (Hadith 2036), both Mandal ibn Ali and Al-Arzami appear together in the chain, combining two weak narrators.
In Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir by at-Tabarani (Hadith 9842) and Al-Mu’jam al-Awsat (Hadith 1000), the chain includes Muhammad ibn Dhakwan, whom Al-Uqayli listed as rejected in transmission (Munkar al-Hadith).
In As-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi (Hadith 7367), although the narrators are trustworthy, Imam al-Bayhaqi pointed out a break in the chain (Irsaal) between Abu al-Bakhtari and Ali ibn Abi Talib, as they never met.
In Sunan ad-Daraqutni (Hadith 2037), the narrator is Ismail ibn Muslim al-Makki:
(سنن الدارقطني: 2037 – حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ بْنِ أَبَانَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ عَنْ شَرِيكٍ عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ (إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ الْمَكِّيُّ مُنْكَرُ الْحَدِيثِ) عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ الْأَحْوَلِ عَنْ أَبِي رَافِعٍ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- بَعَثَ عُمَرَ سَاعِيًا فَكَانَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْعَبَّاسِ شَيْءٌ فَقَالَ النَّبِيَّ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- : « أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ عَمَّ الرَّجُلِ صِنْوُ أَبِيهِ إِنَّ الْعَبَّاسَ أَسْلَفَنَا صَدَقَةَ الْعَامِ عَامَ الْأَوَّلِ»)
The evaluation of Ismail ibn Muslim al-Makki in Tahdhib at-Tahdhib (Vol. 5, p. 598) is as follows:
(تهذيب التهذيب: 598 – ت ق – إسماعيل بن مسلم المكي كان يحيى وعبد الرحمن لا يحدثان عنه.وقال علي عن القطان: لم يزل مختلطا كان يحدثنا بالحديث الواحد على ثلاثة ضروب وقال إسحاق بن أبي إسرائيل عن ابن عيينة: كان إسماعيل يخطئ، أسأله عن الحديث فما كان يدري شيئاً وقال أبو طالب عن أحمد: منكر الحديث ويسند عن الحسن عن سمرة أحاديث مناكير وقال ابن معين: ليس بشيء وقال ابن المديني: لا يكتب حديثه وقال الفلاس: كان ضعيفاً في الحديث يهم فيه وكان صدوقاً يكثر الغلط يحدث عنه من لا ينظر في الرجال وقال الجوزجاني: واهي جداً وقال أبو زرعة: ضعيف الحديث وقال أبو حاتم: ضعيف الحديث مختلط وقال ابن أبي حاتم قلت لأبي وهو أحب إليك أو عمرو بن عبيد فقال: جميعا ضعيفان وإسماعيل ضعيف الحديث ليس بمتروك يكتب حديثه وقال البخاري: تركه يحيى وابن مهدي وتركه ابن المبارك وربما ذكره وقال النسائي: متروك الحديث وقال مرة: ليس بثقة قال ابن حبان: كان فصيحاً وهو ضعيف يروي المناكير عن المشاهير ويقلب الأسانيد وقال الحاكم عن أبي علي الحافظ: ضعيف وقال ابن خزيمة: أنا أبرأ من عهدته وقال البزار: ليس بالقوي وذكره الفسوي في باب من يرغب عن الرواية عنهم وقال أبو أحمد الحاكم: ليس بالقوي عندهم وذكره العقيلي والدولابي والساجي وابن الجارود وغيرهم في الضعفاء)
Ismail al-Makki was categorized by Yahya ibn Ma’in, Ibn Mahdi, Al-Qattan, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Al-Bukhari, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Hatim, and Ibn Hibban as confused in transmission (Mukhtalit), weak, and abandoned.
Conversely, this exact event is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith 1468) and Sahih Muslim (Hadith 983) with an authentic, sound chain:
(صحيح مسلم: 983 – وَحَدَّثَنِي زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَفْصٍ، حَدَّثَنَا وَرْقَاءُ، عَنْ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ: بَعَثَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عُمَرَ عَلَى الصَّدَقَةِ، فَقِيلَ: مَنَعَ ابْنُ جَمِيلٍ، وَخَالِدُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ، وَالْعَبَّاسُ عَمُّ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «مَا يَنْقِمُ ابْنُ جَمِيلٍ إِلَّا أَنَّهُ كَانَ فَقِيرًا فَأَغْنَاهُ اللهُ، وَأَمَّا خَالِدٌ فَإِنَّكُمْ تَظْلِمُونَ خَالِدًا، قَدِ احْتَبَسَ أَدْرَاعَهُ وَأَعْتَادَهُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ، وَأَمَّا الْعَبَّاسُ فَهِيَ عَلَيَّ، وَمِثْلُهَا مَعَهَا» ثُمَّ قَالَ: «يَا عُمَرُ، أَمَا شَعَرْتَ أَنَّ عَمَّ الرَّجُلِ صِنْوُ أَبِيهِ؟»)
(صحيح البخاري: 1468 – حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو اليَمَانِ، أَخْبَرَنَا شُعَيْبٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الزِّنَادِ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: أَمَرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِالصَّدَقَةِ، فَقِيلَ مَنَعَ أَبْنُ جَمِيلٍ، وَخَالِدُ بْنُ الوَلِيدِ، وَعَبَّاسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ المُطَّلِبِ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: “مَا يَنْقِمُ ابْنُ جَمِيلٍ إِلَّا أَنَّهُ كَانَ فَقِيرًا، فَأَغْنَاهُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ، وَأَمَّا خَالِدٌ: فَإِنَّكُمْ تَظْلِمُونَ خَالِدًا، قَدِ احْتَبَسَ أَدْرَاعَهُ وَأَعْتُدَهُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ، وَأَمَّا العَبَّاسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ المُطَّلِبِ، فَعَمُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَهِيَ عَلَيْهِ صَدَقَةٌ وَمِثْلُهَا مَعَهَا”)
The authentic narration in the two canonical collections clarifies that when Umar reported that three individuals (Ibn Jamil, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and Abbas) withheld Zakat, the Prophet replied: Ibn Jamil was poor and Allah enriched him, yet he refused; as for Khalid, you wrong him, for he has devoted his armor and equipment in the cause of Allah; and as for Abbas, he is my uncle, and his Zakat, along with an equivalent amount extra, is my personal responsibility to pay. Hafiz Ibn Hajar explained that out of respect for his uncle and family honor, the Prophet assumed the payment himself. The authentic text in Al-Bukhari and Muslim contains no mention of collecting Zakat two years in advance, but rather states that the Prophet personally assumed the obligation alongside an additional sum.
The third argument offered by proponents of recurring Zakat relies on a tradition stating: “Whoever does three things has tasted the flavor of faith… and gives the Zakat of his wealth willingly every year…”
This narration appears in Sunan Abi Dawud (Hadith 1582), As-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi (Hadith 7275), and Al-Mu’jam as-Saghir by at-Tabarani (Hadith 555):
(السنن الكبرى للبيهقي: 7275 – وَأَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الْحُسَيْنِ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ الْقَطَّانُ بِبَغْدَادَ، أَنْبَأَ عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ دَرَسْتَوَيْهِ، ثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ سُفْيَانَ، ثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، حَدَّثَنِي عَمْرُو بْنُ الْحَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ سَالِمٍ، عَنِ الزُّبَيْدِيِّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ جَابِرٍ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنَ جُبَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّ أَبَاهُ حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ مُعَاوِيَةَ الْغَاضِرِيَّ حَدَّثَهُمْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: “ثَلَاثٌ مَنْ فَعَلَهُنَّ فَقَدْ طَعِمَ طَعْمَ الْإِيمَانِ: مَنْ عَبَدَ اللهَ وَحْدَهُ فَإِنَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، وَأَعْطَى زَكَاةَ مَالِهِ طَيِّبَةً بِهَا نَفْسُهُ، رَافِدَةً عَلَيْهِ فِي كُلِّ عَامٍ…”)
(سنن أبي داود: 1582 – قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ: وَقَرَأْتُ فِي كِتَابِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ بِحِمْصَ عِنْدَ آلِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْحَارِثِ الْحِمْصِيِّ، عَنِ الزُّبَيْدِيِّ، قَالَ: وَأَخْبَرَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ جَابِرٍ، عَنْ جُبَيْرِ بْنِ نُفَيْرٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ الْغَاضِرِيِّ…)
(المعجم الصغير: 555 – حدثنا علي بن الحسن بن معروف الحمصي حدثنا أبو تقي عبد الحميد بن إبراهيم حدثنا عبد الله بن سالم بن محمد بن الوليد الزبيدي…)
This tradition contains several narrator deficiencies:
First, the chain includes Amr ibn al-Harith, whom Imam adh-Dhahabi noted as unknown (Lam Yu’raf). The narrator he transmits from, Ishaq ibn Ibrahim, was declared untrustworthy (Laysa bi-Thiqah) by An-Nasa’i and accused of falsehood by Muhammad ibn Awn.
Second, Imam Abu Dawud mentioned that he read this Hadith from a book belonging to Abdullah ibn Salim found in the house of the family of Amr ibn al-Harith. In Hadith scholarship, reading from a manuscript found in someone’s house without explicit oral permission or hearing (Wijadah) does not constitute definitive proof.
Third, the chain in Al-Mu’jam as-Saghir includes Abdul-Hamid ibn Ibrahim (Abu Taqi). Tahdhib at-Tahdhib (Vol. 6, p. 220) notes regarding him:
(تهذيب التهذيب: 220 – “س عبد الحميد” بن إبراهيم الحضرمي أبو تقي قال ابن أبي حاتم سألت محمد بن عوف فقال كان شيخاً ضريراً لا يحفظ وكنا نكتب من نسخة ابن سالم فنحمله إليه ونلقنه وكان لا يحفظ الإسناد ويحفظ بعض المتن فيحدثنا وقال أبو حاتم ذكر أنه سمع كتب عبد الله بن سالم أنه ذهبت كتبه فقال لا أحفظها ثم قدمت حمص بعد فإذا قوم يروون عنه وقالوا عرض عليه كتاب بن زبريق ولقنوه فحدثهم وليس هذا شيء وقال في موضع آخر ليس بثقة)
Muhammad ibn AWF and Abu Hatim stated that he was blind, lacked retentive memory, lost his books, and would recite whatever promptings people provided him, concluding that he is not reliable (Laysa bi-Thiqah).
Fourth, even if the wording “every year” (Kulla Aam) were accepted as authentic, it refers to the annual Zakat due on newly generated income, fresh agricultural harvests, and new business turnover, rather than repeated Zakat assessed on identical, static wealth that was previously purified.
In conclusion, agricultural Zakat (Ushr) is paid once at the time of harvest, and Zakat on treasures and spoils of war is paid once upon acquisition. Under this overarching legal principle, cash, gold, and silver are likewise purified once Zakat has been paid on them. No authentic, explicit text in Islamic law requires levying Zakat repeatedly every year on static wealth that has already been purified. Islamic law emphasizes ease, and the purpose of Zakat is to purify wealth and bring blessing, rather than creating concern that savings will be gradually depleted by recurring levies. If the Muslim community fulfills its Zakat obligations fully and accurately once on all newly acquired wealth, it would effectively address poverty and foster economic stability.