52 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XIII, 



ing either the Faithful or the Infidel to "alms" in dirhams, 

 though the order referred to by Kbafi Khan was issued some 

 time after their actual coinage, 



I now come to the Mirat-i-Ahmadi, of which the writer 

 again quotes the ipsissima verba of five Imperial Far mans on 

 the subject of zakat. The first of these is dated 4th Shawwal 

 1075 a.h. and was issued with the object of doing away, once 

 for all, with the unequal rates at which the zakat was levied 

 in different parts of the Imperial dominions, and establishing a 

 uniform rate of M one in forty" (2\ percent) for Musalrnans 

 and " two in forty ' ' (5 per cent) for Hindus. (Mirat-i-Ahmadi, 

 Bombay Lithograph 1307 a.h., Part I, pp. 272-73). By the 

 second, bearing date 25 Zilq'ad 1077 a.h., Musalman mer- 

 chants were exempted from payment of the tax, which con- 

 tinued to be levied from the goods of the Hindu traders. 

 (Ibid., pp. 280-81). The third re-impo3ed it on the former on 

 the 5th of Rabi-ul-Awwal of the 25th Regnal year (1093 a h.) 

 on account of their collusion with Hindus for the purpose of 

 defrauding the Exchequer (Ibid., pp. 315-10). The fourth 

 was issued in 1099 a.h. and enjoined that the tax should be 

 levied not, as heretofore, in the place where the goods had 

 been purchased, but in that where they were actually sold. 

 (Ibid., pp. 335-6). Ten years afterwards (1109 a.h.) the rule 

 was again altered and it was determined, for fiscal reasons, 

 to revert to the old practice of realizing the zakat in the place 

 of purchase. (Ibid., pp. 357-58). 



Now there is no reference whatever to these Dirahini-i- 

 Shar'aiinany one of these five documents, although the last 

 three were all issued after the coinage of the dirhams had 

 commenced about the 24th Regnal year (1092) to which the 

 specimen in the Punjab Museum belongs. (Whitehead, P.M.C 

 No, 1950). It must be remembered also that the zakat was an 

 ad valorem duty, and as the value of the goods of merchant 

 were entered in their Bills of Lading and Invoices only in 

 Rupees, the Revenue Officers must have found it very incon- 

 venient to levy the duty in any other medium than the current 

 coin of the Realm. Indeed, in determining the value of the 

 nisdb or minimum exempted from the payment of zakat by 

 the Law of the Prophet, Aurangzeb himself found it necessary 

 to express its equvalent in two of these Farmanfl (the first 

 and the third), only in Rupees (Rs. 52-8 and Rs. 54-12-6). 

 (Mxrat, pp. 278 and 316.) It is possible to deny any signifi- 

 cance to this fact, but it may also be maintained with reason, 

 that if the Emperor had seriously intended to make the zakat 

 payable optionally or otherwise, in the new-fangled dirhams, 

 he would have employed the phrase 200 dirhams, or at least 

 ii e ^J ernatlve ex P re ssion '200 dirhams or Rs. 52-8' (or Rs. 



54-12-6). 



I am aware that this is at best a negative argument, and 



