Bukhari

Hadith Commentary:
That is, this verse does not pertain to this wealth: ﴿وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ﴾ ().
It is understood from this that if someone accumulates wealth, he is not sinful, provided that he pays zakat (obligatory charity) on it.
Although it is contrary to piety and virtue.
This chapter heading itself is a hadith.
Imam Malik has narrated it as mawquf (attributed to a Companion) from Ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhu), and Abu Dawud has narrated a marfu‘ (attributed to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) hadith with the same meaning.
The hadith: “There is no charity (zakat) due on less than five awaq (ounces) of silver.”
This hadith appears in this chapter.
Imam Bukhari has deduced from this hadith that wealth on which zakat is paid is not considered kanz (hoarded treasure).
To store and keep such wealth is permissible, because on less than five awaq of silver, according to the explicit text of the hadith, zakat is not obligatory.
Therefore, to keep and store such an amount of silver is not kanz, and this must be considered an exception from the verse, and the reason for this exception is that zakat is not due on it. So, wealth on which zakat has been paid is also not kanz, because zakat is no longer due on it.
One uqiyyah (awqiyah) is forty dirhams, so five uqiyyah is two hundred dirhams, that is, fifty-two and a half tolah (a traditional measure) of silver.
This is the nisab (minimum threshold) for silver; zakat is not due on less than this.
Regarding kanz, in al-Bayhaqi, in the narration from Abdullah ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhu), it is stated: “Every wealth whose zakat you have paid, even if it is buried beneath the seven earths, is not kanz; and every wealth whose zakat you have not paid is kanz, even if it is displayed on the surface of the earth.” ()
(Fath al-Bari)
That is, every wealth on which you have paid zakat is not kanz, even if it is buried beneath the seventh layer of the earth, and every wealth on which zakat has not been paid is kanz, even if it is placed on the surface of the earth.
This statement of his is also narrated: “I do not care if I had gold equal to (the mountain of) Uhud, as long as I know its amount, pay its zakat, and use it in obedience to Allah, the Exalted.”
(Fath)
That is, I do not mind if I possess gold as much as Mount Uhud, and I purify it by paying zakat and use it in acts of obedience to Allah, the Exalted; meaning, in this state, even such a great treasure would not be harmful to me.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In view of the verse of Kanz (hoarding), Abu Dharr radi Allahu anhu held the position that keeping wealth in excess of one’s needs is not permissible according to the Shariah; rather, it is a form of hoarding (kanz) for which a warning has been given in the Qur’an. He would also cite this verse in support of his position:
﴿وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنْفِقُونَ قُلِ الْعَفْوَ﴾ (al-Baqarah: 219: 2)
“And they ask you what they should spend (in Allah’s way)? Say: That which is surplus (to your needs), spend it in the way of Allah.”
Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu said regarding the verse of Kanz that this ruling was at the beginning of Islam.
When zakat (obligatory charity) was made obligatory, it abrogated this ruling; that is, when conquests occurred and the nisab (minimum threshold) for zakat was established, and its recipients were specified, then the ruling mentioned in the verse also came to an end.
In reality, Abu Dharr radi Allahu anhu would hear a hadith from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam in which there was a strict ruling, and he would convey it to his people. Later, some leniency would be introduced regarding it, but Abu Dharr radi Allahu anhu would continue to act upon the initial ruling, as is the case with his stance regarding the accumulation of wealth.
The majority of the Companions disagreed with him.
(Fath al-Bari: 3/345)
(2)
The noble verses in which spending all wealth in excess of one’s needs is commanded represent the upper limit of voluntary charity (nafl sadaqah).
It should not be that a person spends all his wealth in the way of Allah and then himself becomes needy.
The minimum limit of charity is the obligatory zakat, which lies at the boundary between disbelief and Islam.
In other words, one who does not pay zakat is a disbeliever, not a Muslim, as Abu Bakr radi Allahu anhu waged jihad against such people.
And between these two limits is a vast field, and the people of virtue may earn as many good deeds as they wish.
But unfortunately, those among us with socialist inclinations have greatly misinterpreted the meaning of “al-‘afw” in the Qur’anic verse.
According to the socialist ideology, the government is the owner of everything, and in a socialist government, the concept of individual ownership cannot even be imagined.
Now the question arises: if a person does not have personal ownership of anything, then what will he save and what will he spend, and what will he ask about regarding spending? In other words, the very verse from which an attempt is made to derive the socialist ideology is itself a clear refutation of that ideology, because it is evident from the verse that those asking the question were themselves owners of their wealth and had the ability to dispose of it as they wished.
They asked this question at a time when there was a severe need for resources for jihad, as Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri radi Allahu anhu says that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam once said during a journey:
“Whoever has surplus riding provision should give it to one who has none, and whoever has surplus food should give it to one who has none.”
In short, the Prophet mentioned each type of wealth in such a manner that we were compelled to think that we have no right in our surplus wealth.
(Sahih Muslim, al-Luqatah, Hadith: 4517(1728))
Even in such circumstances, Allah Ta‘ala did not give the government the authority to seize all the surplus wealth from people; rather, Muslims are being trained in such a way that if they give all their wealth of their own will and choice, that is best. However, those Muslims who, even in such circumstances, cannot or do not wish to give all their surplus wealth, no restriction has been imposed upon them. In contrast, the socialist ideology is the exact opposite, which, even in ordinary circumstances—let alone times of war—deprives people of the right of ownership. Therefore, there is no scope to derive the socialist ideology from this noble verse.