Hadith Search Engine

Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili from a son of Abdullah ibn Sufyan ath-Thaqafi from his grandfather Sufyan ibn Abdullah that Umar ibn al-Khattab once sent him to collect zakat. He used to include sakhlas (when assessing zakat), and they said, "Do you include sakhlas even though you do not take them (as payment)?" He returned to Umar ibn al-Khattab and mentioned that to him and Umar said, "Yes, you include a sakhla which the shepherd is carrying, but you do not take it. Neither do you take an akula, or a rubba, or a makhid, or male sheep and goats in their second and third years, and this is a just compromise between the young of sheep and goats and the best of them." Malik said, "A sakhla is a newborn lamb or kid. A rubba is a mother that is looking after her offspring, a makhid is a pregnant ewe or goat, and an akula is a sheep or goat that is being fattened for meat." Malik said, about a man who had sheep and goats on which he did not have to pay any zakat, but which increased by birth to a zakatable amount on the day before the zakat collector came to them, "If the number of sheep and goats along with their (newborn) offspring reaches a zakatable amount then the man has to pay zakat on them. That is because the offspring of the sheep are part of the flock itself. It is not the same situation as when some one acquires sheep by buying them, or is given them, or inherits them. Rather, it is like when merchandise whose value does not come to a zakatable amount is sold, and with the profit that accrues it then comes to a zakatable amount. The owner must then pay zakat on both his profit and his original capital, taken together. If his profit had been a chance acquisition or an inheritance he would not have had to pay zakat on it until one year had elapsed over it from the day he had acquired it or inherited it." Malik said, "The young of sheep and goats are part of the flock, in the same way that profit from wealth is part of that wealth. There is, however, one difference, in that when a man has a zakatable amount of gold and silver, and then acquires an additional amount of wealth, he leaves aside the wealth he has acquired and does not pay zakat on it when he pays the zakat on his original wealth but waits until a year has elapsed over what he has acquired from the day he acquired it. Whereas a man who has a zakatable amount of sheep and goats, or cattle, or camels, and then acquires another camel, cow, sheep or goat, pays zakat on it at the same time that he pays the zakat on the others of its kind, if he already has a zakatable amount of livestock of that particular kind." Malik said, "This is the best of what I have heard about this. "
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yazid ibn Abdullah ibn al-Had from Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Harith at-Taymi from Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf that Abu Hurayra said, "I went out to at-Tur (Mount Sinai) and met Kab al Ahbar and sat with him. He related to me things from the Tawrah and I related to him things from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Among the things I related to him was that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'The best of days on which the sun rises is the day of jumua. In it Adam was created, and in it he fell from the Garden. In it he was forgiven, and in it he died. In it the Hour occurs, and every moving thing listens from morning till sunset in apprehension of the Hour except jinn and men. In it is a time when Allah gives toa muslim slave standing in prayer whatever he asks for.' Kab said, 'That is one day in every year.' I said, 'No, in every jumua.' Then Kab recited the Tawrah and said, 'The Messenger of Allah has spoken the truth.' " Abu Hurayra continued, "I met Basra ibn Abi Basra al-Ghiffari and he said, 'Where have you come from?' I said, 'From at-Tur.' He said, 'If I had seen you before you left, you would not have gone. I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Only make a special journey to three mosques: the mosque of the Haram (Makka), this mosque (Madina), and the mosque of Ilya or the Bait al-Maqdis (two names of Jerusalem)." ' " (He was not sure which expression was used.) Abu Hurayra continued, "Then I met Abdullah ibn Salam and I told him that I had sat with Kabal-Ahbar, and I mentioned what I had related to him about the day of jumua, and told him that Kab had said, 'That is one day in every year.' Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'Kab lied,' and I added, 'Kab then recited the Tawrah and said, "No, it is in every jumua.'' ' Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'Kab spoke the truth. 'Then Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'I know what time that is.' " Abu Hurayra continued, "I said to him, 'Let me know it - don't keep it from me.' Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'It is the last period of time in the dayof jumua.' " Abu Hurayra continued, "I said, 'How can it be the last period of time in the day of jumua, when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "a muslim slave standing in prayer", and that is a time when there is no prayer?' Abdullah ibn Salam replied, 'Didn't the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Whoever sits waiting for the prayer is in prayer until he prays?" "' Abu Hurayra added, "I said, 'Of course.' He said, 'Then it is that.' "
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ziyad ibn Sad that Ibn Shihab said, "Neither jurur, nor musran al-fara, nor adhq ibn hubayq should be taken as zakat from dates. They should be included in the assessment but not taken as zakat." Malik said, "This is the same as with sheep and goats, whose young are included in the assessment but are not (actually) taken as zakat. There are also certain kinds of fruit which are not taken as zakat, such as burdi dates (one of the finest kinds of dates), and similar varieties. Neither the lowest quality (of any property) nor the highest should be taken. Rather, zakat should be taken from average quality property." Malik said, "The position that we are agreed upon concerning fruit is that only dates and grapes are estimated while on the tree. They are estimated when their usability is clear and they are halal to sell. This is because the fruit of date-palms and vines is eaten straightaway in the form of fresh dates and grapes, and so the assessment is done by estimation to make things easier for people and to avoid causing them trouble. Their produce is estimated and then they are given a free hand in using their produce as they wish, and later they pay the zakat on it according to the estimation that was made." Malik said, "crops which are not eaten fresh, such as grains and seeds, which are only eaten after they have been harvested, are not estimated. The owner, after he has harvested, threshed and sifted the crop, so that it is then in the form of grain or seed, has to fulfil his trust himself and deduct the zakat he owes if the amount is large enough for him to have to pay zakat. This is the position that we are all agreed upon here (in Madina)." Malik said, "The position that we are all agreed upon here (in Madina) is that the produce of date palms is estimated while it is still on the tree, after it has ripened and become halal to sell, and the zakat on it is deducted in the form of dried dates at the time of harvest. If the fruit is damaged after it has been estimated and the damage affects all the fruit then no zakat has to be paid. If some of the fruit remains unaffected, and this fruit amounts to five awsuq or more using the sa of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, then zakat is deducted from it. Zakat does not have to be paid, however, on the fruit that was damaged . Grapevines are dealt with in the same way. If a man owns various pieces of property in various places, or is a co-owner of various pieces of property in various places, none of which individually comes to a zakatable amount, but which, when added together, do come to a zakatable amount, then he adds them together and pays the zakat that is due on them ."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm from Umar ibn Abdal-Aziz from Abu Bakr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "If anyone goes bankrupt, and a man finds his own property intact with him, he is more entitled to it than anyone else." Malik spoke about a man who sold a man wares, and the buyer went bankrupt. He said, "The seller takes whatever of his goods he finds. If the buyer has sold some of them and distributed them, the seller of the wares is more entitled to them than the creditors. What the buyer has distributed does not prevent the seller from taking whatever of it he finds. It is the seller's right if he has received any of the price from the buyer and he wants to return it to take what he finds of his wares, and in what he does not find, he is like the creditors." Malik spoke about some one who bought spun wool or a plot of land, and then did some work on it, like building a house on the plot of land or weaving the spun wool into cloth. Then he went bankrupt after he had bought it, and the original owner of the plot said, "I will take the plot and whatever structure is on it." Malik said, "That structure is not his. However, the plot and what is in it that the buyer has improved is appraised. Then one sees what the price of the plot is and how much of that value is the price of the structure. They are partners in that. The owner of the plot has as much as his portion, and the creditors have the amount of the portion of the structure." Malik said, "The explanation of that is that the value of it all is fifteen hundred dirhams. The value of the plot is five hundred dirhams, and the value of the building is one thousand dirhams. The owner of the plot has a third, and the creditors have two-thirds." Malik said, "It is like that with spinning and other things of the same nature in these circumstances and the buyer has a debt which he cannot pay. This is the behaviour in such cases." Malik said, "As for goods which have been sold and which the buyer does not improve, but those goods sell well and have gone up in price, so their owner wants them and the creditors also want to seize them, then the creditors choose between giving the owner of the goods the price for which he sold them and not giving him any loss and surrendering his goods to him. "If the price of the goods has gone down, the one who sold them has a choice. If he likes, he can take his goods and he has no claim to any of his debtor's property, and that is his right. If he likes, he can be one of the creditors and take a portion of his due and not take his goods. That is up to him." Malik said about someone who bought a slave-girl or animal and she gave birth in his possession and the buyer went bankrupt, "The slave-girl or the animal and the offspring belong to the seller unless the creditors desire it. In that case they give him his complete due and they take it."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar from Said ibn al-Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade the sale with uncertainty in it. Malik said, "An example of one type of uncertain transaction and risk is that a man intends the price of a stray animal or escaped slave to be fifty dinars. A man says, 'I will take him from you for twenty dinars.' If the buyer finds him, thirty dinars goes from the seller, and if he does not find him, the seller takes twenty dinars from the buyer." Malik said, "There is another fault in that. If that stray is found, it is not known whether it will have increased or decreased in value or what defects may have befallen it. This transaction is greatly uncertain and risky." Malik said, "According to our way of doing things, one kind of uncertain transaction and risk is selling what is in the wombs of females - women and animals - because it is not known whether or not it will come out, and if it does come out, it is not known whether it will be beautiful or ugly, normal or disabled, male or female. All that is disparate. If it has that, its price is such-and-such, and if it has this, its price is such-and-such." Malik said, "Females must not be sold with what is in their wombs excluded. That is that, for instance, a man says to another, 'The price of my sheep which has much milk is three dinars. She is yours for two dinars while I will have her future offspring.' This is disapproved because it is an uncertain transaction and a risk." Malik said, "It is not halal to sell olives for olive oil or sesame for sesame oil, or butter for ghee because muzabana comes into that, because the person who buys the raw product for something specified which comes from it, does not know whether more or less will come out of that, so it is an uncertain transaction and a risk." Malik said, "A similar case is the selling of ben-nuts for ben-nut oil. This is an uncertain transaction because what comes from the ben-nut is ben-oil. There is no harm in selling ben-nuts for perfumed ben because perfumed ben has been perfumed, mixed and changed from the state of raw ben-nut oil." Malik, speaking about a man who sold goods to a man on the provision that there was to be no loss for the buyer, (i.e. if the buyer could not re-sell the goods they could go back to the seller), said, "This transaction is not permitted and it is part of risk. The explanation of why it is so, is that it is as if the seller hired the buyer for the profit if the goods make a profit. If he sells the stock at a loss, he has nothing, and his efforts are not compensated. This is not good. In such a transaction, the buyer should have a wage according to the work that he has contributed. Whatever there is of loss or profit in those goods is for and against the seller. This is only when the goods are gone and sold. If they do not go, the transaction between them is null and void." Malik said, "As for a man who buys goods from a man and he concludes the sale and then the buyer regrets and asks to have the price reduced and the seller refuses and says, 'Sell it and I will compensate you for any loss.' There is no harm in this because there is no risk. It is something he proposes to him, and their transaction was not based on that. That is what is done among us."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Umar ibn al-Khattab asked the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, about someone who died without parents or offspring, and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to him, "The ayat which was sent down in the summer at the end of the Surat an-Nisa (Sura 4) is enoughfor you." Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us, in which there is no dispute, and which I saw the people of knowledge in our city doing, is that the person who leaves neither parent or offspring can be of two types. As for the kind described in the ayat which was sent down at the beginning of the Surat an-Nisa in which Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted! said, 'If a man or a woman has no direct heir, but has a brother or a sister by the mother, each of the two has a sixth. If there are more than that, they share equally in a third.' (Sura 4 ayat 12) This heirless one does not have heirs among his mother's siblings since there are no children or parents. As for the other kind described in the ayat which comes at the end of the Surat an-Nisa, Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in it, 'They will ask you for a decision. Say, "Allah gives you a decision about the indirect heirs. If a man perishes having no children, but he has a sister, she shall receive a half of what he leaves, and he is her heir if she has no children. If there are two sisters, they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves. If there are brothers and sisters, the male shall receive the portion of two females. Allah makes clear to you that you might not go astray. Allah has knowledge of everything" ' " (Sura 4 ayat 176). Malik said, "If this person without direct heirs (parents) or children has siblings by the father, they inherit with the grandfather from the person without direct heirs. The grandfather inherits with the siblings because he is more entitled to the inheritance than them. That is because he inherits a sixth with the male children of the deceased when the siblings do not inherit anything with the male children of the deceased. How can he not be like one of them when he takes a sixth with the children of the deceased? How can he not take a third with the siblings while the brother's sons take a third with them? The grandfather is the one who overshadows the half-siblings by the mother and keeps them from inheriting. He is more entitled to what they have because they are omitted for his sake. If the grandfather did not take that third, the half-siblings by the mother would take it and would take what does not return to the half-siblings by the father. The half-siblings by the mother are more entitled to that third than the half-siblings by the father while the grandfather is more entitled to that than the half-siblings by the mother."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me, that Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us about a man buying cloth in one city, and then taking it to another city to sell as a murabaha, is that he is not reckoned to have the wage of an agent, or any allowance for ironing, folding, straightening, expenses, or the rent of a house. As for the cost of transporting the drapery, it is included in the basic price, and no share of the profit is allocated to it unless the agent tells all of that to the investor. If they agree to share the profits accordingly after knowledge of it, there is no harm in that." Malik said, "As for bleaching, tailoring, dyeing, and such things, they are treated in the same way as drapery. The profit is reckoned in them as it is reckoned in drapery goods. So if he sells the drapery goods without clarifying the things we named as not getting profit, and if the drapery has already gone, the transport is to be reckoned, but no profit is given. If the drapery goods have not gone the transaction between them is null and void unless they make a new mutual agreement on what is to be permitted between them." Malik spoke about an agent who bought goods for gold or silver, and the exchange rate on the day of purchase was ten dirhams to the dinar. He took them to a city to sell murabaha, or sold them where he purchased them according to the exchange rate of the day on which he sold them. If he bought them for dirhams and he sold them for dinars, or he bought them for dinars and he sold them for dirhams, and the goods had not gone then he had a choice. If he wished, he accepted to sell the goods and if he wished, he left them. If the goods had been sold, he had the price for which the salesman bought them, and the salesman was reckoned to have the profit on what they were bought for, over what the investor gained as profit. Malik said, "If a man sells goods worth one hundred dinars for one hundred and ten, and he hears after that they are worth ninety dinars, and the goods have gone, the seller has a choice. If he likes, he has the price of the goods on the day they were taken from him unless the price is more than the price for which he was obliged to sell them in the first place, and he does not have more than that - and it is one hundred and ten dinars. If he likes, it is counted as profit against ninety unless the price his goods reached was less than the value. He is given the choice between what his goods fetch and the capital plus the profit, which is ninety-nine dinars." Malik said, "If someone sells goods in murabaha and he says, 'It was valued at one hundred dinars to me.' Then he hears later on, that it was worth one hundred and twenty dinars, the customer is given the choice. If he wishes, he gives the salesman the value of the goods on the day he took them, and if he wishes, he gives the price for which he bought them according to the reckoning of what profit he gives him, as far as it goes, unless that is less than the price for which he bought them, for he should not give the owner of the goods a loss from the price for which he bought them because he was satisfied with that. The owner of the goods came to seek extra, so the buyer has no argument against the salesman in that to make a reduction from the first price for which he bought it according to the list of contents."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya said that Malik related from Muhammad ibn Umara from Abu Bakr ibn Hazm that Uthman ibn Affan said, "When boundaries are fixed in land, there is no pre-emption in it. There is no pre-emption in a well or in male palm trees." Malik said, "This is what is done in our community." Malik said, "There is no pre-emption in a road, whether or not it is practical to divide it." Malik said, "What is done in our community is that there is no pre-emption in the courtyard of a house, whether or not it is practical to divide it." Malik spoke about a man who bought into a shared property provided that he had the option of withdrawal and the partners of the seller wanted to take what their partner was selling by pre-emption before the buyer had exercised his option. Malik said, "They cannot do that until the buyer has taken possession and the sale is confirmed for him. When the sale is confirmed, they have the right of pre-emption." Malik spoke about a man who bought land and it remained in his hands for some time. Then a man came and saw that he had a share of the land by inheritance. Malik said, "If the man's right of inheritance is established, he also has a right of preemption. If the land has produced a crop, the crop belongs to the buyer until the day when the right of the other is established, because he has tended what was planted against being destroyed or being carried away by a flood." Malik continued, "If the time has been long, or the witnesses are dead or the seller has died, or the buyer has died, or they are both alive and the basis of the sale and purchase has been forgotten because of the length of time, pre-emption is discontinued. A man only takes his right by inheritance which has been established for him. If his situation differs from this, because the sale transaction is recent and he sees that the seller has concealed the price in order to sever his right of pre-emption, the value of the land is estimated, and he buys the land for that price by his right of pre-emption. Then the buildings, plants, or structures which are extra to the land are looked at, so he is in the position of some one who bought the land for a known price, and then after that built on it and planted. The owner of pre-emption takes possession after that is included." Malik said, "Pre-emption is applied to the property of the deceased as it is applied to the property of the living. If the family of the deceased fear to break up the property of the deceased, then they share it and sell it, and they have no pre-emption in it." Malik said, "There is no pre-emption among us in a slave or a slave-girl or a camel, a cow, sheep, or any animal, nor in clothes or a well which does not have any uncultivated land around it. Pre-emption is in what can be usefully divided, and in land in which boundaries occur. As for what cannot be usefully divided, there is no pre-emption in it." Malik said, "Some one who buys land in which people who are present have a right of pre-emption, refers them to the Sultan and either they claim their right or the Sultan surrenders it to him. If he were to leave them, and not refer their situation to the Sultan and they knew about his purchase, and then they left it until a long time had passed and then came demanding their pre-emption, I do not think that they would have it."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Sulayman ibn Yasar said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, andZayd ibn Thabit gave the grandfather a third with full siblings". Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things among us and what I have seen the people of knowledge in our city doing is that the paternal grandfather does not inherit anything at all with the father. He is given a sixth as a fixed share with the son and the grandson through a son. Other than that, when the deceased does not leave a mother or a paternal aunt, one begins with whoever has a fixed share, and they are given their shares. If there is a sixth of the property left over, the grandfather is given a sixth as a fixed share." Malik said, "When someone shares with the grandfather and the full siblings in a specified share, one begins with whoever shares with them of the people of fixed shares. They are given their shares. What is left over after that belongs to the grandfather and the full siblings. Then one sees which is the more favourable of two alternatives for the portion of the grandfather. Either a third is allotted to him and the siblings to divide between them, and he gets a share as if he were one of the siblings, or else he takes a sixth from all the capital. Whichever is the best portion for the grandfather is given to him. What is left after that, goes to the full siblings. The male gets the portion of two females except in one particular case. The division in this case is different from the preceding one. This case is when a woman dies and leaves a husband, mother, full sister and grandfather. The husband gets a half, the mother gets a third, the grandfather gets a sixth, and the full sister gets a half. The sixth of the grandfather and the half of the sister are joined and divided into thirds. The male gets the share of two females. Therefore, the grandfather has two thirds, and the sister has one third." Malik said, "The inheritance of the half-siblings by the father with the grandfather when there are no full siblings with them, is like the inheritance of the full siblings (in the same situation). The males are the same as their males and the females are the same as their females. When there are both full siblings and half-siblings by the father, the full siblings include in their number the number of half-siblings by the father, to limit the inheritance of the grandfather, i.e., if there was only one full sibling with the grandfather. They would share, after the allotting of the fixed shares, the remainder of the inheritance between them equally. If there were also two half-siblings by the father, their number is added to the division of the sum, which would then be divided four ways. A quarter going to the grandfather and three-quarters going to the full siblings who annex the shares technically allotted to the half-siblings by the father. They do not include the number of half-siblings by the mother, because if there were only half-siblings by the father they would not inherit anything with the grandfather and all the capital would belong to the grandfather, and so the siblings would not get anything after the portion of the grandfather. "It belongs to the full siblings more than the half-siblings by the father, and the half-siblings by the father do not get anything with them unless the full siblings consist of one sister. If there is one full sister, she includes the grandfather with the half-siblings by her father in the division, however many. Whatever remains for her and these half-siblings by the father goes to her rather than them until she has had her complete share, which is half of the total capital. If there is surplus beyond half of all the capital in what she and the half-siblings by the father acquire it goes to them. The male has the portion of two females. If there is nothing left over, they get nothing."
Report Mistake | Permalink

Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab said, "The first person to deduct zakat from allowances was Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan." (i.e. the deduction being made automatically). Malik said, "The agreed sunna with us is that zakat has to be paid on twenty dinars (of gold coin), in the same way as it has to be paid on two hundred dirhams (of silver)." Malik said, "There is no zakat to pay on (gold) that is clearly less than twenty dinars (in weight) but if it increases so that by the increase the amount reaches a full twenty dinars in weight then zakat has to be paid. Similarly, there is no zakat to pay on (silver) that is clearly less than two hundred dirhams (in weight), but if it increases so that by the increase the amount reaches a full two hundred dirhams in weight then zakat has to be paid. If it passes the full weight then I think there is zakat to pay, whether it be dinars or dirhams." (i.e. the zakat is assessed by the weight and not the number of the coins.) Malik said, about a man who had one hundred and sixty dirhams by weight, and the exchange rate in his town was eight dirhams to a dinar, that he did not have to pay any zakat. Zakat had only to be paid on twenty dinars of gold or two hundred dirhams. Malik said, in the case of a man who acquired five dinars from a transaction or in some other way which he then invested in trade, that, as soon as it increased to a zakatable amount and then a year elapsed, he had to pay zakat on it, even if the zakatable amount was reached one day before or one day after the passing of a year. There was then no zakat to pay on it from the day the zakat was taken until a year had elapsed over it. Malik said, in the similar case of a man who had in his possession ten dinars which he invested in trade and which reached twenty dinars by the time one year had elapsed over them, that he paid zakat on them right then and did not wait until a year had elapsed over them, (counting) from the day when they actually reached the zakatable amount. This was because a year had elapsed over the original dinars and there were now twenty of them in his possession. After that there was no zakat to pay on them from the day the zakat was paid until another year had elapsed over them. Malik said, "What we are agreed upon (here in Madina) regarding income from hiring out slaves, rent from property, and the sums received when a slave buys his freedom, is that no zakat is due on any of it, whether great or small, from the day the owner takes possession of it until a year has elapsed over it from the day when the owner takes possession of it." Malik said, in the case of gold and silver which was shared between two co-owners, that zakat was due from any one whose share reached twenty dinars of gold, or two hundred dirhams of silver, and that no zakat was due from anyone whose share fell short of this zakatable amount. If all the shares reached the zakatable amount and the shares were not equally divided, zakat was taken from each man according to the measure of his share. This applied only when the share of each man among them reached the zakatable amount, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, "There is no zakat to pay on less than five awaq of silver." Malik commented, "This is what I prefer most out of what I have heard about the matter." Malik said, "When a man has gold and silver dispersed among various people he must add it all up together and then take out the zakat due on the total sum ." Malik said, "No zakat is due from some one who acquires gold or silver until a year has elapsed over his acquisition from the day it became his."
Report Mistake | Permalink