Social Security

Islam has prescribed for the state the duty of providing social security in respect of the standard of living for all the members of the Islamic community. The state usually sets about discharging this important duty at two levels. At the first level, the state provides each person with an opportunity for a generous share from productive work in order that he may earn his livelihood with his own labour and effort. However, when anyone is unable to do work and earn his livelihood wholly with his own labour, or in an exceptional situation where the state is unable to afford him an opportunity for work, the state carries out this duty on the second level.

The second level is the application of the principle of social security whereby the state shall make available adequate funds to defray the expenses to meet he needs and wants of a person. It is the duty of the state to fix a particular limit with regard to his standard of living. This principle of social security is established on the two premises of the Islamic economic doctrine and draws its doctrinal (economic) legitimacy from both.

The first premise is social or common responsibility, and the other is the right of the society to the resources of the state under common ownership. Each of these has its limits and its exigencies in respect of the determination of the type of needs that must be met as well as the minimum standard of living that the state has to guarantee the society under the principle of the social security. The first premise requires a guarantee for only the basic necessities of life and critical needs of an individual, whilst the second premise makes it obligatory for the state to guarantee the fulfilment of broader needs and higher standard of life. It is incumbent upon the state to implement the social security on both premises within the limits of its authority and capabilities.

In order to determine the idea behind the principle of social security in Islam it is necessary for us to expound both of these premises, their exigencies and the relevant legal evidence.

The First Premise Of Social Security

As mentioned above, the first premise for the principle of social security is the principle of social or common responsibility. Islam has prescribed this for the Muslims as a fardul-kifayah, a communal obligation or a legal obligation that must be discharged by the Muslim community as a whole. It includes the support for and maintenance of certain groups of people by the rest of the community. It is a duty incumbent upon a Muslim within the bounds of his means and powers. He has to discharge it just as he has to discharge all of his other duties.

The function that the state pursues under this principle of common responsibility of the Muslims actually expresses the state’s role in compelling its citizens to comply with what the Shari’ah has tasked them with. The state sees to it that the Muslims on their own abide by the laws of Islam in its capacity as a ruling authority being charged with the application of the laws of Islam. Having the power to enjoin rightful deeds and prohibit the sinful actions, the state is answerable in respect of its duties and is vested with the right to ensure, and if necessary by force, that each person under its rule carries out his religious obligations and complies with the orders of Allah, the Supreme.

Just as the state has the right to compel Muslims to go out for jihad, in the same way it has the right to compel them to discharge their obligations in respect of the maintenance and support of the disabled, in the event they refuse to do so. In accordance with this right, it is reasonable for it to afford social security to the disabled on behalf of the Muslims and to impose upon them within the bounds of its means and powers to render assistance with a sufficient amount of funds towards the implementation of this guarantee and thus facilitate their compliance with the divine order of Allah, the Supreme.

In order that we may know the limits of the social security that the state will pursue on the basis of the principle of the common responsibility and the types of needs it will satisfy, we should look for guidance in the legal texts in relation to this principle of the common responsibility. In light of these texts we should determine the level of maintenance and support the Muslims are responsible to provide. These limits should be subsequently adopted in the application of this principle of social security.

It is mentioned in a sound tradition on the authority of Sama’ah that he asked al-Imam Ja’far ibn Muhammad (a.s.): “There is a group of people. They have excess (of wealth) while their brethren are in severe needs, and the zakat will not suffice them. Can they eat to their fill while their brethren go hungry? It is hard time.” “A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim”, replied the Imam. “He shall not wrong him, neither shall he abandon him in bad condition, nor deprive him. It is a duty incumbent upon a Muslim to strive after, keep friendly relation, cooperate with each other and be sympathetic to those in need.”

In another tradition (it is stated): al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: “Whosoever of the faithful denies another faithful a thing that he is in need of, while he can give it out of what he has, or somebody else has, will arise (from his grave) on the Day of Resurrection, with his face blackened, his eyes blinded, and his hands tied to his neck. Then it will be said: ‘This man is a dishonest who had committed dishonesty against Allah and His Messenger.’ Then he will be ordered to Hell.” His being ordered to Hell, obviously proves that the satisfaction of the need or want of a brother believer is a duty obligatory upon a believer within the limits of his means and capacity, because a believer does not enter Hell for omitting what is not obligatory on him, which is not his duty to do.

Though the term ‘hajah’ (need or want) in this tradition occurs in a general sense, in the preceding tradition it occurs in the sense of a severe need, because the charge and guarantee of a collective satisfaction of a need other than severe is not an obligatory duty on the Muslims. From this it follows that it is a guarantee within the limits of critical needs and wants when Muslims have sufficient provisions in their possession to spare. In such cases, they cannot - within the term of the first tradition quoted above - leave their brother in privation. On the contrary it will be obligatory (on him) to satisfy his brother’s need and afford him the means to relieve himself of the hardship. Islam has linked this guarantee of social security with the general principle of universal brotherhood of Muslims in order to show that it is not a special type of tax, but a practical expression of the principle of universal brotherhood of Muslims. It proceeds from here by prescribing a moral framework that is consistent with its conceptions and values, for a man’s right to the support and maintenance by others. In the Islamic sense, this support is out of a brotherly sentiment for him and from an emotional acceptance of their togetherness in a just human family.

The State carries out, within the bounds of its capacity and powers, the protection of this right. The needs that deserve to be fulfilled with this right are critical needs - meaning basic necessities - which if not fulfilled would be make life difficult. Thus, we know that social security on the basis of common responsibility is confined within the limits of basic needs of individuals, which must be fulfilled, to ensure that life is not too difficult for them.

The Second Premise Of Social Security

But the State does not derive its justification for the social security by applying the principle of common responsibility. On the contrary, it is possible to show another premise for the social security, as we have previously learnt. It is the right of the society to the natural resources. On this the basis, the state will be directly responsible for the livelihood of the needy and helpless. This is quite apart from the obligation on the members of the Muslim community to support and maintain those in difficulty.

We shall firstly discuss the state’s direct responsibility on social security and its limits according to the legislative texts, and then we will discuss the right of the society to natural wealth, which is the theoretical basis of the thought of this security. As for this direct responsibility for social security, the terms of this responsibility differ from that, which the state exercises on the basis of the principle of the society’s common responsibility.

It imposes on the state the responsibility for economic security not only within the boundaries of a person’s basic needs, but also that of his means of life in keeping with the standard of living of the Islamic community. Here, security applies to the security of upkeep, and upkeep means affording an individual the means in keeping with the standard of living and aiding the person to maintaining it.

The term ‘maintenance’ is used here in its popular sense. It implies that whenever the Muslim community’s general standard of living increases in terms of comfort and ease, it is incumbent on the state to satisfy an individual’s basic needs such as food, shelter and clothes, such that the level of his wellbeing – both by quality and quantity – reflects the overall standard of living of the Muslim society. Likewise, it is incumbent on the state to fulfil all the needs of an individual beside his basic necessities. These needs constitute the Islamic meaning of upkeep in line with the elevation of the standard of living of the Islamic society.

The legislative texts, pointing to the State’s direct responsibility for social security are quite clear in their emphasis on this responsibility and on the fact that this security is a security of upkeep, that is, a security of affording the means of upkeep in line with the standard of living of the Islamic community. There is a tradition reported on the authority of al-Imam Ja’far as- Sadiq (a.s.) that: “The Messenger of Allah (S) used to say in his sermon ‘Whosoever leaves behind him his loss, his loss is my responsibility and whosoever leaves debt behind him his debt is my responsibility and whosoever leaves his money it is his food.’ “

In another tradition, it is stated that al-Imam Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.) said, defining what is due to him and what is due from him: “He is the heir of one who leaves no heir behind him, and he maintains one who has no means to maintain himself.” In a report of Musa ibn Bakr (it is stated) that al-Imam Musa (a.s.) told him that one who seeks sustenance by lawful means in order to benefit himself and his family and children is a mujahid in the cause of Allah. Then, if he fails in that let him seek to borrow in the name of Allah and His Messenger (S) whatever he needs to feed his family and children. Then, if he dies without discharging his debt then it will be the responsibility of the Imam to discharge it. Then, if the Imam does not discharge it, upon him will be the burden of it. Allah, the Mighty, the Glorious says:

“Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.” (9:60).1

It is stated in a letter of al-Imam ‘Ali (a.s.) to the Governor of Egypt:

“Thereafter for the sake of Allah take care of those from among the poor and the needy, the miserable and the crippled who have no means to support themselves. They are a class of contented and courageous people. Allot for them a share out of your Bayt Al-Mal and a share of Islam’s best crops from every city, for the most distant of them is like that which is for the nearest of them. You should surely call to your attention the right of every one of them and pride should not divert your attention away from them. Indeed, you will not make lame excuse of loss of a trifle for your numerous important orders. Do not leave off your care of them nor turn away your face in disdain from them.”

“Then from among them who cannot reach you, he from whom eyes are swiftly turned away, he whom people hold in contempt and whose matters you missed let you employ your trustworthy man of Godly fear and humility to devote themselves to such a one of them and let them bring before you their matters, then act in respect of them in a way that it will constitute your plea to Allah on the Day you will confront Him for these are from among those under your rule and more in need of justice than others. Look after the orphans, and the one enfeebled by age who has neither the ability nor can toil for their own problems.”

These texts enunciate quite clearly the principle of social security and expound the responsibility of the state in relation to the maintenance of each member of the community and providing him with the means to financially support his living expenses. It is this principle of social security that the state is considered directly responsible to apply and pursue in the Islamic society.

As for the theoretical premise for this principle on the security, Islam holds that the society has the right to all natural resources of the nation for all these natural resources have been created for the society as a whole, not for any specific group only excluding the rest of the community:

“It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth; Moreover His design comprehended the heavens, for He gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect knowledge”. (2:29).

This right means that every individual of the society has a right to benefit from the natural wealth and to a dignified life therefrom. Thus for each person who is capable of working in any of the sectors for public or private industries, it will be a duty of the state to afford him a work opportunity within the bounds of its capacity. As for those whom the State cannot afford the opportunity or who are unable to benefit from the opportunity, then it will be the responsibility of the state provide for them the benefit from the natural wealth in the form of financial support for expenses commensurate with that of a dignified life.

So the direct responsibility of the state in respect of social security rests on the premise of the society’s common right to the natural wealth and that constitutes an evidence of the right of certain members of the society who are incapable of doing work.

As for the mode that the economic doctrine adopts to enable the state to afford economic security in line with this right and to afford economic protection for the entire community including the disabled, it is by establishing certain public sector enterprises. These enterprises are to be funded with public resources and state assets in order that they may constitute an institution on similar footing as zakat – securing the right of the weak and a building a barrier against monopoly of the entire wealth by the economically strong.

The state will thus bring some measure of balance by underwriting the expenditure for social security and affording each individual the right to a dignified life with financial support drawn from the utilization of the nation’s natural assets. The basis, in light of this, is the right of the entire society to benefit from the natural wealth.

The idea about social security that rests on this premise is the basis for the state’s direct responsibility in providing economic security - in terms of the means to maintain an adequate standard of dignified life - to all the individuals of the society including the helpless and the poor. The doctrinal mode for the implementation of this idea is public sector enterprises, created under the Islamic economic doctrine as the institution towards full realization of all the relevant goals.

The most striking legislative piece in relation to the declaration of this premise for all of the economic doctrinal content – both the idea and the mode - is the Qur’anic injunction in surat al-Hashr. The relevant verse of the surah specifies the function of “ fay’ ” and its role in the Islamic society as an instrument of public sector. Here is the text:

“What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (and taken away) from them - for this ye made no expedition with either cavalry or camelry: but Allah gives power to His messengers over any He pleases: and Allah has power over all things.” (59:6).

“What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (and taken away) from the people of the townships,- belongs to Allah,- to His Messenger and to kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer; In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you. So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment”. (59:7).

In this verse we find the declaration of the basis, on which the idea of social security is established. The basis is the right of the whole society to the wealth, as expressed by the Qur’anic phrase - In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you. The verse explains the legislation of the public sector of the fay’. It shapes a mode of the social security based on this right. It forbids monopolistic control of wealth by some people and it lays emphasis on the necessity of subjugating the public sector to the good and benefit of the orphans, the poor and the wayfarer in order that all the individuals of the society succeed in obtaining their right to enjoy the benefit of nature which Allah has created for the service of man.2 So the basis, the idea and the mode, all of them are obvious in this Qur’anic injunction.

Some of the jurists like ash-Shaykh al-Hurr have given their legal opinion, that the social security granted by the state is not specific only for Muslims but also for a dhimmi (a non-Muslim subject) who lives under the protection and shelter of the Islamic state. The elderly, who is unable to earn his livelihood, will obtain the means of his maintenance from the Bayt Al-Mal. Ash-Shaykh al-Hurr has quoted a tradition on the authority of al-Imam ‘Ali (a.s.) that he passed by an old man who was begging where upon Amir al-mu’minin (a.s.) asked: “What is this?” He was told that the beggar was a Christian. The Imam said: “You sought to make use of him until when he grew old and is unable to work, and you deny him his means of sustenance. Give him his maintenance money from the Bayt Al-Mal.”

Social Balance

Islam formulates the principle of the state economic policy in relation to the social balance by proceeding from two fundamental realities. One is universal, and the other is doctrinal. As for the universal reality, it is that there is great diversity among individuals as to their mental, intellectual and physical faculties and aptitude. They differ as to their endurance and fortitude and their will power and ambitions. They differ as to the level of enthusiasm, receptiveness and creative abilities. They also differ as to physical strength, mental and emotional stamina and other qualitative aspects of human personality.

Islam views these disparities not as the outcome of random occurrences in the history of man, as presumed by some with the extremist view, who will always attempt to point to economic factor as the ultimate cause of every phenomenon in human history. It is a mistake to attempt to explain these variations and disparities on the basis of a particular social circumstance or a specific economic factor.

If it were possible to fully explain a condition of a society in light of economic factor and if it can be said that the feudal order or slavery was born out of an economic cause, as claimed by the proponents of materialist way of explaining history, then what economic circumstance would adequately explain the appearance of those specific variation and disparities between individuals? Why does a person become a slave, and another, lord or master? Or why is a person insightful and capable of inventing new things, while another person completely the opposite? Or why isn’t each of them in the place of the other, within the framework of a general order.

The question can only be answered by assuming that individuals are diverse as to their specific talents and capabilities, even before the social variations among them (in the class-based society) come into play. This may help explain the difference between individuals in the class-based society and the designation of each individual to a particular role in this order.

A similar assumption is also required to explain the difference as regards their natural talents and capabilities. Thus, it will be wrong to say that this person happens to be insightful because he occupies the role of the lord in the class order while another person is dull-witted because he is in role of a slave in that order. This is unacceptable because for this person to be in the role of slave and the other in the role of the lord, there exists a differential between them to enable the lord to make the slave content with the distribution of the roles in that form. Thus, we are led to eventually conclude that the cause is the natural psychological factors, which are the source of the differences between individuals as regards their peculiarities and aptitudes.

Hence, difference among individuals is an absolute reality. It is not the product of a social conditioning. So, it is neither possible for a realistic theory to disregard it, nor for the social order to abolish it with legislation or with a process that alters the nature of social relationship. This is the first reality.

The second reality that is the basis of the Islamic rationale in dealing with matters related to social balance, it is the (economic) doctrinal law of (wealth) distribution whereby work is the basis of ownership and related rights. We have come across this law and we have studied every detail of its doctrinal contents in earlier discussions.

Now let us combine these two realities in order to know how Islam proceeded from both in dealing with issues related to social balance. Islam’s understanding and acceptance of the disparity in wealth is the outcome of its understanding and acceptance of these two realities. Let us assume, for example, that a group of people settle down in an area and develop it economically. A society grows and its members establish relationships with each other on the basis that work will be the source of ownership. Let’s assume further that on that basis, none of them will practise any type of exploitation against others. After a while, we would find variation and disparity in respect of their wealth according to their intellectual, spiritual and physical makeups.

Islam acknowledges these differences Islam because they are born from both realities. It sees no danger from such variation coming into conflict with the social balance. It is on this basis that Islam prescribes that in understanding social balance, these two realities are to be acknowledged. From that, Islam educes the statement to the effect that social balance would be a balance of the standard of living and not the equality of income among individual members of the society. And the meaning of (balance in) the ‘standard of living’ is that wealth should be present with and circulate among the people to a degree that afford each individual member of the society a common standard of living. That means that every individual member of the society affords to enjoy life on a single standard of living. The degree of the living standard has to be preserved such that the means to support livelihood only differ within a single standard of living. There would be a difference of degree in the standard of living and but not a stark contrast like those existing in the capitalist society.

This does not mean that Islam enjoins to create this state (of disparity). Instead, Islam defines social balance in terms of the standard of living as a goal that the state should strive with its best, within the bounds of the means at its disposal and its capacity, to implement and achieve with different legal modes and methods. Islam accomplishes this goal by applying pressure - from above - on those with higher standard of living, prohibiting of extravagance. It also applies pressure - from below - towards upgrading of those with lower standard of living. With this, the differing standards of living are brought closer to each other till they come into a single band. There will be differences in standards but they will not be worlds apart like that in the capitalist system.

We have learnt that the Islamic principle of social balance is based on a close examination of the Islamic texts. This examination reveals the view held in these texts, which is that social balance is a goal, and further, that the essence of this goal is as what we have expounded. The texts also emphasise on the direction of the state, which is towards upgrading of the standard of living of those with limited means, to bring them to almost equal footing with those having better means.

It is stated in the tradition that al-Imam Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.) specified the responsibility of the governor of the state as regards zakat.

“The Governor should exact the zakat and spend it for the purposes Allah has directed him according to eight categories of the poor and the indigent. He should distribute it to them in their annuities of such amount as would render them dispense with their needs without difficulty and without dread. After that if there remains any left over as surplus, it will revert to the governor. But if there is shortage, and the amount of zakat is insufficient to meet their needs then the governor would make up the shortage by providing out of funds in his custody an amount that would do to relieve them of their needs.”

This text specifies explicitly that the aim and objective, which Islam tries to achieve, is to make each individual member of the society prosperous. This is what we find from the words of ash-Shaybani according to what has been narrated on his authority by ash-Shamsud-Din as-Sarkhasi, in al-Mabsut. He says:

“A Governor should have fear of Allah in spending monies of Allah for their proper purpose. It is not for him to neglect a needy man without giving him his rightful share out of sadaqah with such amount as would suffice himself and his family. In case some Muslims are in need, and there is nothing left in the Bayt Al-Mal of sadaqat, then the Governor should give out of the kharaj (land-tax) in the Bayt Al-Mal what they are in need of. It will not constitute a debt on (the part of) sadaqat to Bayt Al-Mal, because as explained by us, kharaj and whatever revenue comes within its meaning is for use towards needs of the Muslims.”

So, the prevalence of prosperity is the goal that the texts highlight before the Imam or the head of the state. In order to know the Islamic conception of prosperity, we should specify that also in light of these texts. When we refer to the texts we will find that they have set an upper limit of prosperity for giving zakat. It has permitted giving zakat to a poor till he becomes prosperous but has disallowed giving further zakat to him after that, as mentioned in a report of a tradition on the authority of al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.): “You may give to him zakat till you make him prosperous.” Thus, (the level of) prosperity, the abundance of which Islam aims to achieve for all the members of the society is the prosperity level which is made a line of demarcation between giving and not giving of zakat.

We should again refer to the texts and search for the nature of this line of demarcation between giving and not giving of the zakat, to know the meaning of “al-ghaniyy” in Islam. At this stage of deduction it is possible to discover the nature of that line of demarcation in light of the tradition of Abu Basir, in which it is narrated that: “he asked al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) about a man having in his possession eight hundred dirham, the man, a shoemaker, with a big family, as to whether it is valid for him to take any zakat.” The Imam replied: “O Abu Muhammad! Does he make any saving out of the dirham with which he maintains his family?” “Yes”, replied Abu Muhammad. “If he saves half of the amount with which he supports his family”, said the Imam “then he should not take zakat. But if it is less than half, then in that case he may take zakat. And whatever amount of zakat he takes he may contribute towards the upkeep of his family so as they could join (on level) with people.”

In light of this, we understand that what Islam considers as the ‘level of prosperity’ would be whereby a man enjoys as much of the means of spending upon himself and his family as would join him to the average person in the society. He will have the means to support his living and that of his family to be at par with the common standard of living whereby there is no difficulty and no fear.

In this manner, we will come out from a series of conceptions to an Islamic conception concerning social balance, and will see that when Islam formulated the principle of social balance and made the head of the state (Wali Al-’Amr) responsible to implement it with legal means, expounded its idea concerning this and declared that it will be realized by having increased prosperity for all members of the society.

The Shari’ah has employed this conception of prosperity to fix a line of demarcation between the permissibility and impermissibility of zakat (for a particular individual). In other texts this line of demarcation has been prescribed as that degree of a person’s prosperous condition of living that will join him with the standard of living of the average person. With that, the tradition has given us the Islamic conception of prosperity - that informs concerning the principle of social balance - that it is directed towards the goal of the increased prosperity of all people. It also informs us that the principle regards the prevalence of prosperity as a basic condition for the realization of social balance.

In this manner, we can visualize a complete picture of the Islamic principle of social balance and we will know that the goal set for the head of the state is to bring the underprivileged individuals into a higher standard of living such that they will attain comfortable life similar to that of the average member of the society.

Just as Islam has formulated the principle of social balance it has undertaken to equip the state with the requisite powers in order that it may exercise them for the application of this principle. The essence of these powers is as follows: -

First, the imposition of recurring taxes and to expend the tax revenue for the purpose of social balance.

Second, establishing state-owned enterprises by employing state assets and applying profits from these investments for the purpose of social balance.

Third, the nature of Islamic legislative enactments that regulate diverse fields of economic life.

Imposition Of Permanent Taxes

These taxes are zakat and khums. These two taxes were not planned only for the sake of fulfilling the basic needs, but also for addressing poverty and for upgrading the standard of living of the poor and bringing it closer to that enjoyed by the rich, in order to realize the social balance as conceived by Islam.

The following texts are juridical evidence of the goals in relation to social balance and that the state’s authority and capability to be employed to that end:

a) On the authority of Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar. He says: “I asked al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) if I may give a man one hundred dinar out of the amount of zakat due from me. The Imam said: ‘Yes.’ I then asked: ‘Two hundred.’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I asked: ‘Three hundred.’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I asked: ‘Four hundred.’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I asked: ‘Five hundred.’ He said: ‘Yes, till he becomes self-sufficient.’”

b) On the authority of ‘Abdur-Rahman ibn Hajjaj. He said: “I asked al-Imam Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.) about a man whose father, uncle and brother used to supply him with provisions to meet his needs, as to whether, in case they were not able to supply all the things, can he take zakat and enable himself to meet his needs?” The Imam replied:” There is no objection.”

c) On the authority of Sama’ah. He says: “I asked al-Imam Ja’far ibn Muhammad (a.s.), ‘is taking of zakat valid for a person having a house and a servant?’ The Imam replied: ‘Yes’.”

d) It is reported by Abu Basir, speaking about a person on whom zakat is obligatory while he is not well off in life. The Imam said: “He must be helped in feeding and clothing of his family and children; he may retain something from it and give it to others and he may share with his children whatever of the zakat he takes till they join the people (as to the standard of living).”

e) On the authority of Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar, he said3,” I asked al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.): ‘May I give to a man eighty dirham from zakat? ‘ He said: ‘Yes, and give him even more. ‘I said: ‘May I give him one hundred?’ He said: ‘Yes, and make him self-sufficient if you can do so.’ “

f) On the authority of Mu’awiyah ibn Wahab, he said, “I asked al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.): ‘It is narrated on the authority of the Prophet that giving of sadaqah to the well-to-do is not valid, nor is it valid giving to persons of good means.’ The Imam said: ‘Yes, it is not valid for well-to-do people.’ “

g) On the authority of Abu Basir, he said, “I asked al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.): ‘An old man from among our companion, called ‘Umar, a needy man, begged ‘Isa ibn A’yan for something. ‘Isa ibn A’yan told him, “I have zakat money with me, but I will not give you anything from it, for I saw you purchasing meat and dates.” ‘Umar told him: “I gained only one dirham out of two daniqs therefrom. I purchased meat and with two daniqs, I purchased dates and was left with two daniqs for my need. ” ‘The narration reports that when the Imam heard this story of ‘Umar and ‘Isa ibn A’yan, he put his hands on his forehead for a while, then lifted his head and said: “Allah the Supreme has looked into the monies of the rich. Thereafter, he has looked into the state of the poor and then fixed zakat such sum of the monies of the self-sufficient as they would be satisfied with and if that were not to suffice them, make it more for them. Nay! A self-sufficient men should give a poor men such sum of money as would enable him to eat, drink, clothe himself, marry, give sadaqah and perform the hajj”.4

h) On the authority of Hammad ibn ‘Isa: That al-Imam Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.) said, while he was speaking about the share of the orphans, the needy (miskin) and the wayfarer in relation to the khums – the governor shall dispense it among them according to the Book (al-Qur’an) and the sunnah such amount of annuities as would enable them to dispense with their needs. After that if there is any surplus left, it will belong to the governor. However, in case he is unable to or the khums falls short for their sufficiency in terms of yearly needs, then he is liable to give them, out of the money in his custody, such amount as would render them self-sufficient.

These texts enjoin giving as much out of zakat and such other funds, as would enable an individual to be join the standard of the people or as far as would enable him to become self-sufficient or - according to different wordings which occur in the texts - giving to them such amount as would be sufficient for their primary and secondary requirement such as: food, drink, clothing, marriage, sadaqah and hajj. Each of these is directed to one subject, the efforts to bring about of the prevalence of self-sufficiency according to the Islamic conception at all levels of living standards.

In light of this, we can generally define self-sufficiency and poverty according to Islam. According to the Islamic conception, a faqir (poor) is one who has not met his requisite and various needs as far as the wealth of the country would allow him. In other words, he is one who lives at a standard of living that is well apart from that of the well-to-do members of Islamic society. As for the self-sufficient (the rich), it is he whose living standard is that of the well-to-do in the society, and is not difficult for him to meet the requisite and various needs in a way that commensurate with the wealth and the material progress of the country, irrespective of whether he owns great wealth or not.

From this, we learn that Islam did not specify an absolute meaning and fixed parameters for all cases and situations of poverty. For instance, it cannot be held that the inability to satisfy simple basic needs constitutes poverty because that would make poverty means a life condition below the living standard of ordinary people. By not assigning a fixed meaning to poverty, the actual purport of poverty will be broadened and will be aligned in accordance to rise in the standard of living.

In such a case, lagging behind the pace of this increased standard of living would constitute poverty. For instance, it is possible that people are accustomed to have houses of their own as a result of the progress of civilization and the flourishing condition of a country. If a family does not have an independent house of its own in that country, it would constitute a form of poverty. But in a country that has not reached such standard of ease and comfort of life, if a family does not have a house of its own that would not amount to poverty.

This flexibility in the interpretation of poverty has a bearing on the idea of social balance. If Islam instead offers a fixed and rigid meaning of poverty – as the inability to fulfil simple basic needs -, and to specify zakat or other instruments to address poverty, the establishment of social balance through these alone would not be possible. And they would not be able to bridge the wide gap in the standards of living of the zakat recipients and that of the financially able people, whose economic positions keep on advancing following their advancement in social life and the overall economic progress of the country.

Thus, by providing a flexible interpretation of poverty and self-sufficiency and setting the parameters of zakat and other institutions on the basis of this flexible interpretation, Islam empowers zakat and other instruments to be more effective in assuring the accomplishment of an overall social balance. Providing a flexible meaning is not irrelevant to a purport, with which the prescribed law is connected, such as the flexible interpretation of poverty to which zakat is linked. And this does not mean that the prescribed law can be changed at will. It only means adaptability to the prevailing meaning of the goal and its relevant parameters.

Medical science is a clear example of this. Islamic law has ordained learning of medicine as ‘kifayah’ duty of Muslims. This duty is a permanent ordinance connected with a specific import, namely medicine. But what is the import of medicine? What does learning of medicine mean? Learning of medicine means a study of special information that fulfils, in any circumstance, the condition as regards knowledge of illnesses and the treatment methods.

This specialized information will grow with the passage of time in accordance with the progress of knowledge and the perfection of experience. The information that constituted specialized information yesterday will not be deemed specialized information today. And in complying with the ordinance of Allah in regard to learning medicine, it will not be sufficient for a present day physician that he has mastered only the knowledge of the expert physician of the era of the prophet.

Hence, the flexibility on the significance and the scope of medicine is not a change of the ordinance of law. If the present day physician is different from a physician in the era of the prophet, then it is reasonable for the meaning of ‘poor person’ today also to be different from that in the era of the prophet.

Development Of Public Sector Enterprise

Islam is not content with the regular taxes that it has specified in seeking social balance. It has also made the state responsible for the deployment of public sector assets for this purpose. It is mentioned in a tradition on the authority of al-Imam Musa Kazim (a.s.) that the governor, in case of the insufficiency of zakat collection, is liable to provide them out of what he has with him as much as would help them to become self-sufficient.

The phrase ‘out of’ what he has with him (or what is under his custody) proves that he can employ resources of the Bayt Al-Mal (public treasury) beside zakat towards the cause of attaining social balance by providing economic support for the poor and raising their standard of living. The glorious Qur’an has expounded the part of fay’ which is one of the sources of the revenue of the Bayt Al-Mal. It says:

“….What Allah has bestowed upon His Messenger by way of fay’ from the towns’ people belongs to Him, to His Messenger, to the kinsmen, to the orphans, to the needy and to the wayfarer, so that circulation of wealth may not become confined in the hands of the wealthy amongst them”. (59:7).

We have already learnt that this sacred verse speaks about the object of the use of fay’ and puts the orphans, the needy and the wayfarer on a rank with Allah, His Messenger and the kinsmen. This means that the fay’ is provided for disbursement of part of it to the poor just as it is provided for a disbursement of a part of it upon the common good connected with Allah and His Messenger. The verse clearly indicates that the provision of fay’ for disbursement of part of it to the poor is intended to allocate the money for common use and common possession by all individuals of the society and not being circulated only among the wealthy, especially to enhance social balance.

In fact, Fay’ constitutes assets Muslims have acquired by way of booty from the unbelievers without a war. It constitutes a state property, that is, it belongs to the office of the Prophet or the Imam. Therefore, fay’ is regarded as a class of anfal (spoils of war). They are assets that Allah has rendered the property of the Prophet and the Imam by virtue of their position, such as wastelands or mines, according to a tradition.

The term fay’ is generally applied in legal technical terms to anfal on the evidence of what is stated in the tradition narrated by Muhammad ibn Muslim on the authority of al-Imam al-Baqir (a.s.). He says: “Fay’ and anfal comprise a land that was acquired without bloodshed or whatever of the land that has been acquired from a people that has made peace or what has been given with their own hand as well as the neglected wastelands, and those below the ground (mines). All these constitute fay’. This text makes clear the application of the term fay’ to whatever of other types of properties Muslims have come into possession by way of anfal (spoil of war) and in light of this, the legal technical term will not be restricted to booty obtained without fighting. It is to be an expression as regards all the sectors that come into possession of the office of the Prophet or the Imam as administrators.5

On this basis, we may conclude that the verse confirms the order of anfal in a general form under the name fay’ and by this we learn that in the Shari’ah, anfal is used to safeguard social balance and to ensure circulation of the wealth among all, as it is used for the common good.

The Nature Of Islamic Legislation

The social balance in the Islamic society owes its origin to the collection of Islamic juristic regulations in different fields whereby state obligations are specified. We cannot list here all the juristic rules that have bearing on social balance and demonstrate the relationship between them. But we can adequately refer to Islam’s campaign against hoarding of funds, prohibition of usury, introducing new laws of inheritance, giving the state an authority over unproductive lands and so forth.

By prohibiting hoarding (of funds) and usury, Islam constrains the role of the capitalist-style banks in widening the economic disparity and hurting the social balance. It deprives them of their ability to acquire the lion’s share of the country’s wealth, facilitated by hoarding of funds and interest-based lending.

So, the Islamic policies will most likely impair the ability of the well-funded individuals to expand his dominance in commercial and industrial operations. Their ability to expand his industrial and commercial operations in capitalist societies depends on the banks, which support them with interest-based lending. Thus, when hoarding and interest are prohibited by law, it will not be possible for banks to accumulate huge funds or support private enterprises with interest-based lending. Hence, private businesses will remain within reasonable bounds in keeping with the general balance and that will naturally leave the initiatives on large projects to the public sector.

The Islamic laws of inheritance, according to which the property left by the deceased will most likely be distributed among a number of heirs and relatives, is another instrument in assuring social balance. The distribution of such assets among the deceased’s heirs and relatives accordingly as laid down in these laws will lead to continuous distribution of these assets and will act as a check against their accumulation. Thus, at the end of every generation the total number of new heirs will most likely be a multiple of that before.

The powers conferred upon the state to deal with certain affairs that the Shari’ah is silent, is also an instrument for the state to work at achieving the social balance, as we will find in our forthcoming discussion. Likewise, the prohibition of large-scale production or exploitation of natural resources by a single private sector party also facilitates the attainment of social balance, since it is this upstream production in relation to natural resources that is usually the starting position for many economic activities.

Now, direct labour or work had been stipulated as a condition for the gaining ownership of resources from nature, as held by some jurists, and engagement of others (on behalf of the contender) is invalid for that purpose. Thus, the distributions of the wealth will have already been structured in a pattern that will not hurt the social balance since it would not be possible for a small number of persons to exploit – to their advantage - in this sphere, by employing large capital or other capabilities. This is a matter has become the root cause of growing gaps in the economic positions that could eventually upset the social balance.

The Principle Of Intervention By The State

The comprehensive and universal authority given to the state for intervention in economic life of the community is deemed as one of the fundamental and important principles of the Islamic economic system. For the permanent and fixed dicta of the statutory laws of Islam, the state intervention is restricted to mere adaptation of the static rules. But in relation to those areas on which the shariah is silent, the state intervention is far more significant. It extends to filling these fields with complete set of guidance or regulations. This could include devising dynamic elements as regards the Islamic legislation, according to circumstances.

In the sphere of actual practice, the state would intervene in the economic life to guarantee the adaptation of those dicta of the Islamic law that are connected with the economic life of the individuals. For instance, it puts a check on those transacting businesses with elements of interest (usury) or acquiring authority over land without legitimate reclamation efforts. Likewise, it carries out itself the dicta with which it is directly concerned. For instance, it implements the principle of social security and general social balance in accordance with the way Islam has permitted for the realization of those principles.

In the legislative sphere, the state will intervene to fill the legal gap – those areas the Islamic laws has stayed silent on - left for the authority to improvise according to the changing circumstances, in the form that would assure the attainment of the general goals of Islamic economic system and bring the Islamic picture of social justice to realization. In the early part of our discussion we have referred to this legal void and have learnt that its study and examination is necessary during the search for the doctrine since it enters into the picture - that we are seeking to discover - as a dynamic element. This gives the system the ability to perform its mission and the capacity for integration with the practical and theoretical aspects, in diverse situation and in different ages.

Why Was Legal Gap (Lacuna) Kept?

The idea of these areas of legal flexibility stands on the basis that Islam does not offer a rigid principle of legislation on economic life as a permanent and unchangeable treatment. Islam does not even treat it as a phased system that history transmits over time, from one form to another until its final arrangement. Instead, Islam offers it as a theoretical form suitable for all ages. It is, therefore, necessary to give this form comprehensiveness with a feature of adaptability in response to diversely changing circumstances over measure of time.

To take up this idea in detail, it is necessary for us to determine the changing aspect of man’s economic life and the measure of its implications on the form of legislative enactment that regulates his economic life. In a man’s economic life, he has a relationship with nature – the natural resources – that is exemplified in the mode of their production, and his control over them. He also has relationships with fellow humans, as reflected in the rights and privileges that each of them has acquired.

The difference between these two types of relationships is that for the first type, man pursues it irrespective of whether or not he lives in a society. As for the other, he is entangled with nature in a clearly defined relationship limited by his experience and knowledge. He hunts animals, or cultivates lands, or extracts coals and spins wools in a way he is good at. The existence of these relationships between man and nature does not depend by their nature on man’s presence in a society, but the society influences these relationships. It leads to the accumulation of numerous experiences and the pooling of knowledge and eventually to increased level of human acquaintance with nature and man’s capabilities to meet his needs and desires.

Man’s relationships with fellow humans stipulate their respective rights and obligations and depend on man’s existence in a society. Unless a man lives alone in complete isolation from others, he needs to be concerned about his rights and his duties. All the rules of the relationships – the right to the land he rehabilitates to a productive condition, the prohibition of acquiring gains through usury, obligation to allow others to fulfil their requirement for water from a spring he had uncovered specifically from that in excess of his own needs - have no meaning except in the context of being part of the society.

Islam, as we conceive, distinguishes between these two categories of relationships. It holds that the relationship between man and nature or natural resources changes with the passage of time. It follows from the challenges which man confronts continuously in his interactions with nature and the broad variety of solutions that he had mastered over these difficulties. As often as his relationship with nature changes, his control over it improves and his capability as to his tools and techniques grows.

Man’s relationships with his fellow humans are constant for they treat the problems that are essential and permanent, even though externally they may appear inconsistent. Every society that in the course of its relationship with nature gains control over natural assets will be confronted with issues related to equitable distribution and determination of the rights of the individuals and the society. This is applicable whether production is powered by steam engine, or electricity, or by hand-mill.

Because of this, Islam considers that laws, which regulate these relationships in conformity with social justice, are capable addressing and resolving permanent problems at the theoretical level. For instance, the legal principle stipulating that the ownership right to natural resources is established on the basis of labour, would generally treat similar problems whether they are in the age of the simple plough or in the era of sophisticated machines because the method of the distribution relation is a permanent problem in both ages.

Islam disagrees with Marxism on this. Marxism doctrinally holds that man’s relation with fellow humans changes in accordance with changes in his relationship with nature. Marxism also links the form of distribution with the mode of production. It denies the possibility of discussing problems of the society except in the framework of its relationship with nature. We noticed this when we presented and critically analysed the theory in the first volume of the present book.

On this basis therefore, it is only natural for Islam to offer its principles for the theory and law, which are capable of regulating the relationships between men in different ages. But this is not a reason to avoid giving proper attention to the relationship between man and nature. As man’s command and control over nature grow – and with his resulting control over natural resources growing systematically - so does his threat to the society. There will be means at his service and disposal, for him to expand his interests and that could ruin the form adopted for the social justice.

Let’s take, for instance, the juridical principle that stipulates that the man who expends earnest and hard labour on a piece of land and makes it fit for productive use is more entitled to it than any other person. In the Islamic view this is considered a just principle, because it would an injustice to place the worker who expends his efforts on a piece of land on the same rank as another who has not done so. But with man’s command and control over nature having increased consistently, a single person’s capability and reach can be very extensive.

During the period when a piece of land was cultivated with the help of rudimentary tools, it was not feasible for a single man to undertake cultivation except on a small area. But after the growth of man’s capability and the increasingly abundant means for him to have part of nature under control, it has become possible for a small number of individuals – having the privilege to the relevant opportunity – to even cultivate vast areas of land and to manage the crops effectively by employing large equipment and heavy machinery.

This shakes violently the foundation of social justice and disrupts the efforts towards the collective good of the society. So there must be a juridical form in respect of the areas that Shari’ah remain silent - with adequate mandate and legal capacity to address such issues according to circumstances - so that a general permission is given for the cultivation of the land for a limited period. Subsequent to that, individuals in the next period are to be allowed to cultivate only within limits that commensurate with the aims of Islamic economy and its ideas of social justice.

It is on this basis that Islam has left the legal gap in the juridical space, in which the economic life is regulated, in order for the state could adapt the rules accordingly and keep up to date with the changes in the dynamic relationship between man and nature.

The Juridical Gap (Lacuna) Is Not A Defect

The lacuna or the juridical gap – the area that Shari’ah is silent on - is a not sign of defect or deficiency of the legal system. It is not neglect by the Shari’ah or a failure to address certain real issues. On the contrary, it expresses the comprehensiveness of the form and the legal mandate to keep up to date with diversity in situations and time.

The Shari’ah has not left these areas in a manner that is indicative of neglect. Instead it has specified prescriptions for the respective areas by assigning to each situation its primary juridical attribute, while conferring upon the head of the state the mandate to assign to it a secondary juridical attribute according to circumstances. For instance, cultivation of land by a person is a legally permissible operation and the head of state has the right to prohibit that activity according to exigencies of time and circumstances.

The Juridical Evidence

The following verse of the holy Qur’an is evidence for the mandate conferred to fill the juridical gaps.

"Oh you who believe! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you ….”. (4:59).

The boundaries of the areas, to which the applicable mandate of the head of the state are expanded - in light of this verse – are to include all acts that by its nature is legally permissible. Thus for any activity about which there is no legal text indicating whether it is lawful, or obligatory, or forbidden, the head of state is permitted to give a secondary ruling by forbidding or enjoining it.

So, when the Imam forbids an act that was by its nature permissible, it becomes unlawful and when he enjoins it, it becomes obligatory. As for acts that are generally deemed unlawful by the Shari’ah, for instance, usury, the Wali Al-’Amr has no right to declare it lawful. Likewise, if the Shari’ah had stipulated an act as obligatory, for instance, the financial support for a wife that is obligatory on the husband, the Wali Al-’Amr has no authority to forbid it. Obedience to the Wali Al-’Amr is taken for granted be within limits, only when does not conflict with obedience to Allah and His general commandments. It is for the class of acts that in the nature are mubah (permissible or approved) in the economic life. These constitute the zone of lacuna we referred to.

Illustrative Examples

In the transmitted texts of traditions, there are numerous illustrative examples, of the exercise of his powers by the Wali Al-’Amr in respect of this zone of lacuna. These examples shed light on its nature, and the significance of its constructive role in regulating the economic life of the Islamic society. We present below some of the examples.

a) It is mentioned in the text that the Prophet prohibited the surplus of water and fodder (to the owner). It is also reported on the authority of al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) that he said: “The Messenger of Allah (S) gave an executive order among the people of Medina in respect of watering of palm groves, that the surplus water and fodder shall not be withheld.” This order as haram (unlawful) was as required by the need in the circumstances. When we add to it the opinions of multitude of the jurists - to the effect that if a person withhold part of his surplus water and fodder from another person - it is not something that is originally unlawful in the Shari’ah. It is unlike withdrawing financial support for a wife or drinking liquor. We can adduce that the interdiction issued by the Prophet in his capacity of Wali Al-’Amr .

It was the exercise of his capacity, in the zone of lacuna, according to the circumstances. The society of Medina (city) was in great need of increasing their animals and farms products, so the state ordered the individuals to give their surplus water and fodders to others to stimulate and accelerate the growth of agricultural wealth. Thus, we see that giving away surplus water and fodder is a mubah (permissible, approved) act and the State imposes an order making it an obligatory duty (taklif) as the practical circumstances were such that it was essential of general good of the society.

b) An interdiction of the Prophet against the selling of fruits before they were ripe is mentioned in the tradition. It was reported on the authority of al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) that a question was asked to the Imam about a man selling fruits of a certain land and all the fruits were getting damaged. The Imam replied: “A dispute like that between people was brought to the Messenger of Allah (S). They used to mention it. When he saw that they did not give up quarrelling, he interdicted sale of fruits till they were ripe. However, he did not make sale of unripe fruits unlawful. He only forbade it on account of their disputes.”

In another tradition, the Messenger of Allah (S) is reported to have declared: “The sale of unripe fruits is lawful, but when it leads to dispute and disagreement, no buying or selling of the fruits is allowed until they are ripe.”

Now, the sale of the fruits before they are ready for consumption is a permissible act in its nature, and is commonly permitted. But the Prophet interdicted this sale in his capacity as Wali Al-’Amr to ward off the mischiefs and conflicts resulting from it.

c) At-Tirmidhi reports on the authority of Rafi’ ibn Khudayj that he said: “The Messenger of Allah (S) interdicted us from indulging in an act which was profitable for us, that is, if we happened to have a piece of land to give in the consideration for a part of the land-tax (kharaj) or for dirham.” He, also, told us: “When anyone of you possesses a piece of land, let him bestow it upon his brother to cultivate it or let himself cultivate it. ”

Now, when we put together the case of this interdiction and the agreement of the jurists on the legality of giving land on rent (in the code of the Islamic law in general) and add to it the numerous traditions cited on the authority of the companions indicating the permissibility of renting out land, we would adduce a clearly defined explanation of the text occurring in the tradition reported on the authority of Rafi’ ibn Khudayj.

It is that the Prophet issued the interdiction in his capacity as the Wali Al-’Amr and not as a common legal dictum. So, renting out of a piece of land is among the mubah acts in its nature. It is therefore an act that the Prophet can forbid as an imposed interdiction in his capacity as the Wali Al-’Amr in conformity with the exigencies of the situation.

d) During the rule of al-Imam ‘Ali (a.s.), he gave strong orders to Malik al-Ashtar urging upon him to fix the limits of prices in conformity with justifiable requirements. He has talked to his governor about merchants, has committed them to his care and then followed it with the observation: “And know with that – that there are many who are excessively narrow hearted and abominable miser, profiteers, arbitrary in their buying and selling transactions. That is a category of person harmful to the common people and blameworthy for a governor, so forbid them from hoarding. In fact, the Messenger of Allah (S) has prohibited from indulging in it. And let buying transaction be a magnanimous transaction by the scales of justice and let prices be not arbitrary to either buying party or selling party.”

It is juristically clear that it is permissible for the buyer to sell his commodity at any price he likes. The Shari’ah does not prevent by a general interdiction on the owner selling his commodity at an unfair price. Now, the order of the Imam by placing a limit on the price of a commodity and preventing the merchant from selling it at a higher price was issued by him in his capacity as the head of state, by an exercise of his power and authority in relation to the filling the zone of lacuna, in consonance with the exigencies of the social justice which Islam has adopted.

• 1. The Imam’s quotation of this Holy Verse would not mean encompassing the head of state’s responsibility about maintenance and the disbursement (of it) with a specific source of Bayt Al-Mal’s (Public Treasury) revenue, namely, zakat. This is because the verse is not specific for zakat. Instead, it lays down a general rule concerning sadaqah of all types. The verse therefore includes the money, which the state gives to the helpless and the needy for it is also a type of sadaqah.

  Further, it is not necessary for the head of the state to distribute the zakat to the eight groups mentioned in the verse quoted. On the contrary, it is permissible for him to spend it on some of the groups mentioned in the text of the tradition reported by Musa ibn Bakr, which affirms that if the head of the state did not discharge the debt of the man, it will be a heavy burden upon him, and this is a specific responsibility in relation to social security.

• 2. There are some traditions, which differ from this in the explanation of the verse, like the tradition that speaks of the revelation of the two verses in respect of two different subject matters. It speaks of the first verse that it is about the fay’ and of the second verse that it is about the ghanimah (booty) or about the khums of the ghanimah. But these traditions are weak in terms of authenticity as apparent from the chain of narrators. It is, therefore, necessary for us to explain the two verses in light of their appearance. Both obviously talk about one subject matter, that is about fay’. The first verse negates the right of the soldiers to the fay’ for it was acquired without fighting and the second verse specifies the purposes of the use of fay’, that is, the beneficiaries on whom the fay’ is to be spent. Evidently, the poor, the wayfarers and the orphans being the object of spending the fay’ does not negate its being a property of the Prophet or the Imam by virtue of his position, as sound traditions have pointed out to that.

  The essence of those traditions viewed in parallel with the verse is that fay’ is the property held by the office of the Prophet or the Imam, and the purposes for which it is incumbent upon him to spend the fay’ is one of those within the orbit of the two headings mentioned in the verse, namely, the interest that have to do with Allah, the Prophet, his family, the poor, the wayfarer and the orphans. By the specification of the purposes of expenditure in accordance with the verse is the generality of his statement. (He may put to use where he wishes) as is in the tradition of az-Zurarah. The Imam may put it to use wherever he may wish, within the orbit of the limits the holy verse specifies.

• 3. It may be remarked here that the purchasing power of the dirhams in the days of these texts was greater than the purchasing power of the currency coins to which we apply the same name in present day.
• 4. The preferred opinion concerning the understanding of these texts is that they are directed to the aim of allowing the dispensation of zakat such that they assign a man the category “poor” (and thus his entitlement to zakat) not on the same basis of grouping for ‘in giving it in the way of Allah’ and to that we can give the Islamic conception of a poor person.
• 5. We must add to that that this verse, according to common understanding, is general and not specific.