Interpretation of the verses of rulings (zakat and five) in the interpretation of Zubdat al-Bayan Muntaha al-Maram by al-Husni al-Zaidi

This study has aimed to  investigate  the verses of decrees  related to Zakat and Khums in Zubadah al-Bayan  by Ardabili and Mantaha al-Maram by Haasan Zeidi. The studies  show that after presenting the views and opinions, the commentators, opinions and quotes appropriate to the school to which they belong are chosen, whether it is the school of Ahl al-Baytoror  the school of Zaydiyyah.  Sometimes quotes from the school of the companions have also been used, the opinion of the commentators has been deduced through them with commentary  and jurisprudential methods. The results from the  study  show the pioneering school of thought of  Najaf in the Ardabili era and the expression of what was obtained from the explanatory and intellectual efforts of this school. Also, the clear expression of the similarities and differences of these two interpretations means the interpretation of the verses of the decrees  of the Jafari school and the Zeidi sect. However, the method in this study  was  the comparative approach in order to examine and compare what the two interpretations agree with. In both interpretations, according to the agreement of the two commentators and the purpose of Zakat legislation, we have reached an agreement between both of them on the obligation and legitimacy of paying zakat, and both commentators agreed  on the  legitimacy of Khums and its legitimacy through the Qur’an, traditions , and hadiths of the Ahl al-Bayt and the companions also said the same and agreed on it. Both commentators agreed on Khums because they believe that Khums is for the Holy Prophet and his Ahl al-Bayt. Also, both agreed that the meaning of Anfal is trophy(Anfal). And trophy  is the same as that which is reserved for the messenger of God. Also, both commentaries  agree on the necessity  of Khums as one of the obligatory charity and they are generally similar in stating the cases of the necessity  of khums.  The difference of  two  commentaries  is  that  Zeidi  permits women to collect Zakat and  Ardabili did not address this, and believes that paying Khums is obligatory even on lawful property that is mixed with pelf, but Zeidi did not mention such a thing in his commentary. Also, Ardabili is more complete in his statements about khums than Zeidi  and has acted more comprehensively. The result from this study is that both Ardabili and Zeidi have benefited from the views of scholars and commentators before them who had different religions and each of them has distinguished themselves due to their broad mentality and knowledge. But what distinguishes Muhammad Hassani is his tendency towards the school of the companions in the matters of evidence  and inference in the interpretation of Montaha  al-Maram. He often prefers the words of the Zaydi school and sometimes opposes the famous scholar of the Zaydiyyah school. He agrees with the Ardabili on this issue, but Ardabili disagrees with the famous scholars of the Imamiyyah on some issues, especially that the poor and the needy  are in one one group of zakat or 7 groups  In addition, the opinions of the Imamiyyah school have priority for him. The result of this study is that the interpretation of Ardabili is more complete and comprehensive in reasoning than Zaidi, but both of them in this point  agreed that God respects his position and status and considers it unique to the beloved Messenger of Islam (PBUH) and his family (PBUH).