for him, just as he is trusted in his claim of need. Ibn Aqil said (27): In my view, his word is not to be accepted (28) unless accompanied by evidence, because the original state is the absence of dependents, and it is not impossible to provide evidence for it. This differs from the case where he claims to have no earnings, as he is claiming something that conforms to the original state; for the original state is the absence of earnings and wealth, and it is difficult for him to provide evidence for it. If a person known for wealth claims poverty, his word is not accepted unless there is evidence that testifies that his wealth has been lost or depleted, due to what was narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Begging is not lawful except for three: a man who has been struck by poverty until three of the men of wisdom from his people testify that such and such a person has been struck by poverty, then begging becomes lawful for him until he attains sufficiency, or a basic livelihood" (29). Is it required that there be three witnesses for poverty, or are two sufficient? There are two views: one is that nothing less than three is sufficient, due to the apparent meaning of the report. The second is that the word of two is accepted, because their word is accepted regarding poverty in relation to the rights of human beings, which are built upon greed and stinginess, so it is even more appropriate in the right of Allah Almighty. The report only came regarding the lawfulness of begging, so it is limited to that. If he is not known to have wealth, his word is accepted, and he is not to be made to swear an oath, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not make the two men he saw who were able-bodied swear an oath. If he sees him well-dressed, he also accepts his word, because wealth does not necessarily follow from that, as evidenced by the saying of Allah Almighty: "The ignorant thinks them wealthy due to their restraint." However, it is appropriate that he informs him that what he is giving him is from Zakat, so that he may not be among those for whom Zakat is not lawful. If he sees him in an outwardly destitute state, he gives him from it and does not need (30) to explain to him the conditions for the lawfulness of taking it, nor that what he is paying him is Zakat. Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about a man who pays his Zakat to a man: Does he tell him: "This is Zakat?" He replied: "He gives it to him and remains silent, and does not chide him." Thus, he deemed the outward state of his condition sufficient instead of asking him or informing him.

Section: If a man has merchandise with which he trades, or land from which he derives income that is sufficient for him and his family, he is wealthy and shall not be given anything from charity. If it is not sufficient for him, it is permissible for him to take from it the amount that completes his sufficiency, even if the value of that is large. This matter has previously been mentioned in the [chapter on] Zakat.