Allah has made zakah obligatory on plants and fruit, for He
says: "O you who believe! Spend of the good things which
you have earned, and of that which We bring forth from the
earth" [alBaqarah 267]. Zakah is called expenditure (nafaqah).
Giving the justification for paying zakah on produce, Allah
says: "He it is who produces gardens trellised and
untrellised, and the date palm and the crops of diverse
flavors, and the olive, and the pomegranate, like and unlike.
Eat of the fruit thereof when it produces fruit, and pay its
due upon the harvest day" [alAn'am 141]. In his
explanation of the word haqq (due) in the preceding 'ayah, Ibn
'Abbas says that by haqq is meant both the obligatory zakah
and the 'ushr (tithe) and the half-tithe.
During the time of the Prophet, upon whom be peace, zakah
was levied on wheat, barley, dates, and raisins.
Abu Burdah related from Abu Musa and Mu'azh that when the
Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, sent the (latter two)
to Yemen to teach its inhabitants Islam, he commanded them to
levy sadaqah only on wheat, barley, dates, and raisins. This
hadith is related by ad-Daraqutni, al-Hakim, at-Tabarani, and
al-Baihaqi.
Commenting on the status of the report, al-Baihaqi says
that its chain is muttasil (uninterrupted) and its narrators
are credible.
Whether sadaqah on such items should be considered zakah or
not, Ibn al-Munzhir and ibn 'Abd al-Barr say: "The
scholars are of the opinion that sadaqah is obligatory on
wheat, barley, dates, and raisins." This opinion has its
roots in a saying by Ibn Majah that the Messenger, upon whom
be peace, regulated the payment of zakah on wheat, barley,
dates, raisins and corn. Muhammad ibn 'Ubaidullah al-'Arzumi,
a narrator in its chain, however, is of questionable status in
the eyes of the scholars, and as such, his report is not
credible.
Zakah was not levied on vegetables or fruit, with the
exception of grapes and fresh dates (rutab). 'Ata ibn as-Sa'ib
reported that 'Abdullah ibn al-Mughirah wanted to levy sadaqah
on Musa ibn Talha's vegetables. The latter objected, saying:
"You have no right to do that. The Messenger of Allah
used to say: 'There is no sadaqah on this [vegetables].'
" This is related by ad-Daraqutni, alHakim, and al-Athram
in his Sunan. This hadith is mursal.
Musa ibn Talhah says: "Five things [which were subject
to zakah] were mentioned by the Messenger of Allah, upon whom
be peace: barley, wheat, sult [a kind of barley having no
husk], raisins, and dates. Whatever else the land produces is
not subject to the 'ushr. It is also reported that Mu'azh did
not levy sadaqah on vegetables."
Commenting on the status of these reports, al-Baihaqi says:
"All of these hadith are of the mursal kind but were
reported from different authorities. Nevertheless, they
confirm each other." The hadith on this subject include
the sayings of 'Umar, 'Ali, and 'Aishah.
Al-Athram narrated that one of Caliph 'Umar's governors
wrote to him conceming grape plantations, including peaches
and pomegranates which produced twice as much harvest as the
grapes. He wrote back: "There is no 'ushr (tithe) on
them. They pertain to 'udah--items that cannot be distributed
in inheritance."
At-Tirmizhi agrees with the preceding and says: "The
practice [based upon this] among most jurists is not to levy
sadaqah on vegetables." Al-Qurtubi also supports this:
"Zakah is to be levied on the muqtat [land products used
as stable food] and not on vegetables." In at-Ta'if, they
used to grow pomegranates, peaches, and citrus, but there is
no confirmation that the Prophet and his successors levied
zakah on them.
Ibn al-Qayyim contends: "It was not his [the
Prophet's] practice to levy zakah on horses, slaves, mules,
donkeys, and vegetables, melons, cucumbers, and fruits, which
cannot be stored or measured by capacity. The only exceptions
were grapes and fresh dates. On the latter two kinds, zakah
was levied as a whole, without differentiation whether or not
they were dry."
There is no difference of opinion among jurists concerning
the obligatory nature of zakah on plants and fruits. They do,
however, differ on the kinds of plants and fruits which should
be subject to zakah. Here is the broad spectrum of opinions on
the subject:
Al-Hasan al-Basri and ash-Shu'abi hold that zakah is only
on the specified items (in the Qur'an and sunnah)--that is
corn, dates, and raisins--since other kinds are not mentioned.
Ash-Shaukani upholds this view.
Abu Hanifah maintains that zakah is due on every type of
produce of the land including vegetables, but excluding what
is not intentionally planted and cultivated such as firewood,
bamboo, grass, and those trees which bear no fruit. His
opinion is based upon the general meaning of the Prophet's
saying: "From what the heavens irrigate, a tithe [is
due]." The meaning is general and encompasses all types
of arable products, which are planted to make the land grow,
and therefore refers to any agricultural practices similar to
the growing of grains (habb).
Abu Yusuf and Muhammad hold that zakah is payable on every
product of the land, provided it lasts the whole year without
too much care or treatment. This includes produce measured by
capacity, such as grains, or by mass, such as cotton and
sugar. If the produce does not last a whole year, such as the
two kinds of cucumber (quththa' and khiyar), watermelons and
others of their kind, there is no zakah on them.
Malik holds that zakah is payable on that which is produced
on the land and which stays, becomes dry, and is planted by
human beings. This includes land produce used as nonperishable
food (muqtat), such as safflower and sesame seeds. According
to him, there is no zakah on vegetables and fruits such as
figs, pomegranates and apples. Ash-Shaf'i maintains that zakah
is payable on any produce, provided the resulting crop is used
as regular food which can be stored and planted by human
beings, such as grains and barley.
An-Nawawi says: "Our opinion is that there is no zakah
on any trees other than palm and grapevines. There is also no
zakah on grains other than the one which is or can be stored,
and no zakah on vegetables." Ahmad is of the opinion that
there is zakah on everything that Allah causes the land to
produce, such as grains and fruits, that can be dried,
preserved, measured and planted by human beings, whether they
be considered nonperishable foods, such as wheat and qutniyyat
(including peas, beans, lentils and such other grains), or
spices and herbs (ahariz), such as coriander, caraway seeds,
or seeds such as linseed of the fluz plant (kittan seeds), the
seeds of the two kinds of cucumber (quththa' and khiyar), or
safflower and sesame seeds.
According to Ahmad, zakah is also payable on dry fruits
such as dates, raisins, apricots, figs, almonds, hazel nuts,
and pistachio nuts if the preceding specifications apply to
them. There is no zakah on fresh fruit such as peaches, pears,
apples, apricots, and figs. In the same way, it is not due on
vegetables such as the two kinds of cucumber, watermelons,
eggplants, turnips, and carrots.
An-Nawawi says: "As for olives, our [Shaf'iyyah] view
is that there is no zakah on them." This is also the
opinion of Hasan ibn Salih, Ibn Abu Layla, and Abu 'Ubaid.
Scholars such as as-Zuhri, al-Auza'i, al-Layth, Malik,
athThauri, Abu Hanifah, and Abu Thaur maintain that there is
zakah on olives. Az-Zuhri, al-Layth, and al-Auza'i hold:
"Determine its quantity by conjecture (yukharras), and
then take its zakah in the form of olive oil," while
Malik says: "There is no need to compute its quantity by
conjecture (yukharras). Take a tithe subsequent to the olives
being pressed and attain the weight of five awsuq."
Of their differences on the payment of zakah pertaining to
plants and fruits, Ibn Rushd informs us: "The difference
of opinion lies in the fact that some jurists confine paying
of zakah to only those items of consumption which are
generally agreed upon, while others go beyond those items and
include dried fruits in them too. [The crux of the issue is]:
What qualifies the four edible items [wheat, barley, dates,
and dried grapes] for zakah? Are they subject to zakah because
of their being delineated as such or because of their special
import to the subsistence of life? Those who subscribe to the
first view restrict payment of zakah to the four edibles, and
those who subscribe to the second view extend the obligation
to all land produce except for grass, firewood, and bamboo.
There is a consensus on the latter being excluded from zakah.
However, when it comes to the use of analogy based on a
general statement, both groups rest on shaky ground."
The saying of the Prophet, which uses the expression
allazhi yaqtazhi, reads: "From what the heavens water, a
tithe [is due], and from what is watered by irrigation [nazh]
a half a tithe." The relative pronoun ma is used to mean
al-lazhi, which is a general expression. Allah, the Exalted,
also says: "It is He who has brought into being
gardens--both the cultivated ones and those growing wild--and
the date palm, and fields bearing multiform produce, and the
olive trees, and the pomegranate: all resembling one another
and yet so different. Eat of their fruit when it comes to
fruition, and give unto the poor their due on the harvest day
..." [al-An'am 141].
Analogically speaking, zakah aims at counteracting poverty
and this cannot be done through zakah on land produce which is
edible and sustains life.
Restricting a general statement with this kind of
analogical reasoning vitiates zakah on all land produce except
ones which sustain life. Those who follow the general import
of the Prophet's saying add some more to the generally
acknowledged four items. Excluded of course are the ones on
which there is consensus.
Again, those who agree upon land produce of a subsistance
kind often differ over whether it can be considered as being
subsistent. Can analogical reasoning be the basis of what they
agree upon or not? An example of such a disagreement is that
of Malik and ash-Shaf'i regarding olives. Malik holds that
zakah on olives is obligatory, while ash-Shaf'i is against it,
according to a latter view expressed in Egypt. The reason for
his disagreement is whether olives could be considered as food
vital for life or not.
Most scholars say that there is no zakah on plants or
fruits until they attain the amount of five awsuq.
Furthermore, this becomes applicable only after the chaff,
straw, and husk are removed. If it is not cleansed of husk,
then the amount of zakah would be ten awsuq.
Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace,
said: "There is no sadaqah (zakah) on that which is less
than five awsuq." It is also narrated by Ahmad and
al-Baihaqi with a good chain.
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that the Prophet, upon whom be
peace, said: "There is no sadaqah on any amount of dates
or grains less than five awsuq." A wusuq by consensus of
opinion is sixty sa'as (a cubic measure of varying magnitude).
This hadith is said to be munqati that is--a hadith with an
interrupted chain.
Both Abu Hanifah and Mujahid hold that zakah is due on any
amount, little or big, in accordance with the generic nature
of the Prophet's saying: "From what the heavens water, a
tithe [is due] ..." This is because land produce is
perishable and cannot be preserved for a whole year. In that
case, such produce does not attain a nisab within a one-year
period.
Ibn al-Qayyim's discussion of the subject is that the
authentic and explicit sunnah for a tithe's nisab is the
hadith: "From what the heavens water, a tithe [is due],
and from what is watered by irrigation (gharb-vessel) a half a
tithe." This is applicable to both small and large
quantities as opposed to the specific amount mentioned in
other hadith. In its application, a generic statement is as
important as a specific one. Should there be a conflict
between the two, then the most comprehensive will be
applicable. This is the rule.
It has been said that both of the preceding hadith ought to
be followed. In their essence, they do not contradict each
other, nor does one of them have to cancel the other. The
Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, has to be obeyed in
this matter, for he said: "From what the heavens water, a
tithe [is due] . . ." This saying seeks to distinguish
between the two (categories): one on which a tithe is due, and
the other on which only half of the tithe is due. He therefore
distinguished between the two categories only in respect to
the amount due. There is no mention of any amount of nisab in
this hadith. However, he mentioned it explicitly in another
hadith which cannot be ignored as something that is general or
is intended to be so and not otherwise. It is similar to other
statements of general import which have been explained in the
texts.
Ibn Qudamah concludes: "The saying of the Prophet,
upon whom be peace, that 'there is no sadaqah [zakah] on
anything less than five awsuq' is agreed upon. This hadith is
specific, and for this reason takes precedence and clarifies
his previous statement of general import. This is similar to
his saying that 'zakah is due on all freely grazing camels,'
which becomes explicit by his other saying on the same
subject: 'There is no sadaqah on less than five camels.'
Likewise his saying: 'Sadaqah on silver is a fourth of the
tithe,' becomes specific by a latter utterance: 'There is no
sadaqah on any amount less than five ounces.' Thus, it is
possible to have holdings which qualify for sadaqah per se,
but on which it is not levied."
When it comes to land produce, possession of a property for
a year cannot be used as criterion, because their maturity or
growth is completed by the time of harvest, and not by their
continuity extended beyond a year. However, possession is
considered for goods other than land produce since it is
generally assumed that by the end of the year they must have
completed their growth. The principle of attaining a nisab on
any property is based on the understanding that a nisab is an
amount large enough to be subjected to zakah. This may be
explained by recalling that sadaqah is obligatory for the
rich, which presupposes the existence of nisab generated by
their holdings. For produce which cannot be measured but
qualifies for zakah, a sa'a is used. One sa'a is a measure
equal to one and one-third cups (gadah). Thus, a nisab is
fifty kaylah (kaylah is a dry measure of weight, in Egypt it
is equal to 16.72 L). As to the produce which cannot be
measured, Ibn Quadamah says: "The nisab of saffron,
cotton and such items is to be weighed at 1,600 Iraqi pounds
(ratl, an Iraqi ratl equals approximately 130 dirhams). Thus,
its weight is estimated."
Abu Yusuf says that if the produce cannot be measured, then
zakah can only be levied on it when its value attains the
nisab of articles subject to the lowest standard of
measurement. Thus, zakah will not be levied on cotton until
its value reaches five awsuq of an article to the lowest value
so measured, such as barley and the like. This is because it
is impossible to measure the article in itself except by the
lower price of two nisabs. According to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan:
"For zakah, a product has to reach five times the
greatest value of its kind. Thus, zakah is not payable on
cotton when it reaches five qintars, because evaluation by
means of wusuq is based on the consideration that its value is
higher than what is valued in kind."
The rate of zakah differs according to the method of
irrigation. If it is watered naturally without the use of
artificial means, then the zakah payable is a tithe
(one-tenth) of the produce. However, if it is irrigated by a
mechanical device or with purchased water, then the zakah
payable is half a tithe.
Mu'azh reports that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said:
"On that which is watered by the heavens, or by an
adjacent water channel, a tithe is due. As for what is
irrigated through a well or a stream, its zakah is half a
tithe." This hadith is narrated by alBaihaqi and
al-Hakim, and is graded sahih.
Ibn 'Umar reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace,
said: "On that which is watered by the heavens or springs
or its own roots, a tithe is due, and on that watered by a
well or a stream, half a tithe." This hadith is narrated
by al-Bukhari and others.
In case the land is watered equally by artificial as well
as natural means, then zakah payable will be three-fourths of
a tithe.
Ibn Qudamah stated that he did not know of any difference
of opinion on the preceding hadith. If one method of watering
is used more than the other, then for calculating zakah, this
would be the determining factor. This is the view of Abu
Hanifah, Ahmad, athThauri, and ash-Shaf'i (one of his two
opinions).
All of the costs involved in harvesting, transportation,
threshing, cleaning, storing, and others are to be borne by
the owner from his property and should not be accounted for
against the zakah to be paid.
Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn 'Umar hold that whatever is borrowed for
the purpose of tilling, planting, and harvesting should first
be taken out.
This is evident from their following statements reported by
Jabir ibn Zaid that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn 'Umar said that a man
who borrows in order to spend it either on cultivation (of his
land) or on his family must first pay off his debt, then pay
zakah on the rest. Ibn 'Abbas said: "First he must pay
off what he spent on cultivation, and then pay zakah on the
rest." Yahya ibn Adam related this in al-Kharaj.
Ibn Hazm relates from 'Ata that all expenses are to be
deducted first. If zakah is applicable to the remaining
amount, only then will it be paid.
Land subject to tax is divided into two categores:
-1- 'ushriyyah land (tithe land): land owned by people who
accepted Islam willingly or who were conquered by force and
had their land divided among the conquerors, or land revived
and cultivated by Muslims; and
-2- kharajiyyah land (taxable land), land conquered by
force and left to its original owners on the condition that
they pay the required land tax.
Just as zakah is payable on 'ushriyyah, so it is paid on
kharajiyyah when the inhabitants of the latter accept Islam or
when a Muslim buys it. In that case, both the tithe and the
kharaj become due, and neither of them will negate the
application of the other.
Ibn al-Munzhir witnesses: "This is the view of most of
the scholars, including 'Umar ibn 'Abdulaziz, Rabi'ah,
az-Zuhri, Yahya al-Ansari, Malik, al-Awzai, ath-Thauri,
al-Hasan ibn Salih, Ibn Abu Layla, al-Layth, Ibn al-Mubarak,
Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu 'Ubaid, and Dawud." Their opinion is
derived from the Qur'an, the sunnah, and the exercise of their
intellect--that is, by means of analogical reasoning or qiyas.
The Qur'anic verse referred to is: "O you who believe!
Spend of the good things which you have earned and of that
which We produce from the earth for you" [al-Baqarah
267]. Sharing the produce of ones land with the poor is
obligatory, whether the land is kharajiyyah or 'ushriyyah. The
sunnah referred to is: "From what the heavens water, a
tithe [is due]." This hadith encompasses in its general
meaning both the kharaj and the 'ushriyyah land.
As to the analogical reasoning (qiyas), both zakah and
kharaj are a kind of obligations (hagq), each based on a
different reason, and one does not nullify the other. It is
similar to the case when a person who is in the state of ihram
kills privately owned game (for eating). Since the tithe is
payable by the force of the text, it cannot be negated by
kharaj, which becomes payable by the force of ijtihad. Abu
Hanifah holds that there is no tithe on kharaj land. Kharaj,
he says, is due only when the land is conquered, (whereas) one
of the conditions governing the obligatory nature of the tithe
is that the land should not be kharajiyyah.: The Validity of
Abu Hanifah's View
Imam Abu Hanifah provides the following evidence for his
view: According to Ibn Mas'ud, the Prophet, upon whom be
peace, said: "Neither kharaj nor tithe ['ushr] are
payable simultaneously on the land of a Muslim."
The preceding hadith is by consensus held to be weak
(da'if). Yahya ibn 'Anbasah reported it on the authority of
Abu Hanifah from Hammad from Ibrahim an-Nakha'i from 'Alqamah,
from Ibn Mas'ud from the Prophet, upon whom be peace.
Al-Baihaqi probes its chain and says in al-Ma'rifah
as-Sunan wa al-Athar: "The preceding hadith is narrated
by Abu Hanifah from Hammad from Ibrahim on his own authority.
Thus, Yahya reported in suspended (marfu') form." Yahya
ibn 'Anbasah is well-known for interpolating unauthentic
sayings and attributing them to established authorities. This
was related by Abu Ahmad ibn 'Adiyy al-Hafiz as we were
informed by Abu Sa'id al-Malini about him."
Likewise, al-Kamal Ibn al-Humam, a leading Hanafiyyah,
considers the hadith weak.
Ahmad, Muslirn, and Abu Dawud relate from Abu Hurairah that
the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said: "Iraq would
refrain from paying its qafiz' and dirham, Syria its mudd and
dinar, and Egypt its ardab and dinar. Thus, you would come
back from where you had started." He said this three
times. Abu Hurairah heard this in person.
This hadith does not provide evidence to the effect that
zakah should not be taken from kharaj land. The scholars
interpret it to mean that the conversion of these countries to
Islam would eliminate land tax. It may also have alluded to
dissensions which could prevail at the end of time and which
would lead to neglecting or fulfilling the obligation of
zakah, jizyah and other such dues by them.
An-Nawawi says: "If this hadith means what they [the
Hanafiyyah] claim, then it means that zakah could not be
enjoined on dirhams, dinars, and merchandise. If this is so,
then nobody subscribes to it."
It was reported that when the dahqan (grandee) of Bahr
al-Mulk embraced Islam, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said: "Give
him the land and collect the land tax from him." This is
a clear statement on the matter of taking kharaj without
demanding payment of the tithe.
This incident indicates that kharaj is not cancelled for
any person after he embraces Islam, nor does it lead to the
cancellation of tithe. He mentioned kharaj here as a way of
stating that it will not be cancelled by embracing Islam, like
jizyah. As for the tithe, it is well known that it is binding
on a free Muslim, so there is no need to mention it. He also
did not mention the levy of zakah on cattle. This holds for
the payment of zakah on silver and gold and other valuables.
Perhaps the dahqan (grandee) did not possess anything which
required the levy of a tithe on it.
It is said that the practice of the rulers and imams was
not to combine the 'ushr and kharaj. Ibn al-Munzhir
disapproves of such a practice because 'Umar ibn 'Abdulaziz
did combine the two.
It is also said that kharaj is the opposite of 'ushr. This
means that kharaj is a consequence of conquest, whereas 'ushr
is an act of worship. Therefore, the two cannot be combined
(at one time) and obtained simultaneously from the same
person. This held true in the beginning (when lands were
conquered), but it is not tenable in the long run.
Nevertheless, not all forms of kharaj are based on force and
conquest since some of its forms are instituted without force
as, for example, in the case of lands adjoining a kharaj land
or in the case of acquired and revived land watered with
streams.
It is also said that the reason behind the imposition of
kharaj and 'ushr is one--that is, an actually or potentially
yielding land. This can be explained by recalling that if it
is marsh land of no benefit (sabkhah), there is no kharaj or
'ushr on it. That is, one cause cannot demand two dues of the
same kind. This is similar to the case of an individual who
for a year possesses free-grazing camels (sa'imah) intended
for sale, for such a person is not required to pay two kinds
of zakah--that is, one for possession and one for trade.
This is not the case because the 'ushr (tithe) is payable
on the land's produce and the kharaj on the land itself,
regardless of whether it is planted or not. As to the
admissibility of the unity of cause, alKamal ibn al-Humam
explains there is nothing to prevent two obligations from
being connected to one cause, such as land.
Most scholars are of the opinion that anyone who rents a
piece of land and cultivates it must pay the zakah, not the
true owner of that land. To this Abu Hanifah replies:
"Zakah is due on the land owner." Ibn Rushd holds:
"Their difference lies in whether the 'ushr is payable on
the land itself or its produce." Obviously, zakah, as
their views suggest, is payable on either of them. The
difference is only of priority, considering that both the
produce and the land belong to the same owner. Most scholars
say that zakah is due on seeds (habb). Abu Hanifah holds that
the essence of obligation rests with the land. Ibn Qudamah
inclines toward the majority's view and says: "The
obligation lies on the produce and is payable by its owner, as
in the case of zakah on the value [of a property] intended for
trade. Also, it is similar to the tithe payable on the produce
of the land owned." Their (the Hanafiyyah) view is not
authentic, for if zakah were to be levied on the value of the
land, then it would have been obligatory even if the land was
not cultivated, as is the case with the land tax, and even
nonMuslirns would not be excluded from its application. Be
that the case, kharaj would have to be estimated on the land
itself, not on the value of produce--that is, it would be
considered part of the expenditure of fay', not the
expenditure of zakah.
As soon as palm trees and grapevines ripen and their
produce is ready to be picked, an estimation of their nisab is
made without their actual weighing. The process is carried out
by a knowledgeable and trustworthy person who estimates the
amount of fresh grapes and dates still on the trees for zakah
as if they were dry dates and raisins. The arnount of zakah
is, however, payable when the fruit becomes dry.
Abu Humayd as-Sa'idi related: "We went on the
expedition of Tabuk with the Prophet, upon whom be peace. When
we arrived at Wadi al-Qura, we saw a woman in her orchard. The
Prophet said: 'Let us estimate [her zakah].' Then the
Messenger, upon whom be peace, estimated ten awsuq and told
her: '[The amount of zakah] has been calculated on your
[orchard's] produce.' " This is narrated by alBukhari.
This is the practice of the Messenger of Allah, upon whom
be peace, and his companions and the scholars observed it.
The Hanafiyyah have different views because they consider
conjecture to be uncertain, and therefore, of no use in
determining the amount owed. Still, the tradition of the
Messenger of Allah is a better guide ('azha) because
conjecture is not guessing; it is a diligent attempt to
estimate the amount of the produce. It is the same as
estimating the amount of the produce lost (because of its
being rotten or moth-ridden). The basis for conjecture rests
on the custom that people eat fresh fruits, and as such, there
is no need for calculating the amount of zakah before it is
eaten or plucked. In this way, the owners are allowed to do
what they want and, at the same time, to determine the amount
of zakah. The appraiser should ignore a third or a fourth of
the produce as a reprieve for the property owners since they,
their guests, and their neighbors need to eat some of it.
Also, the produce is exposed to such perils as birds feeding,
passers-by plucking, and wind blowing. Any appraisal of the
amount of zakah on all of the produce without excluding a
third or a fourth of it (for the preceding reasons) would have
militated against the genuine interests of the owners.
Sahl ibn Abu Hathamah related that the Prophet, upon whom
be peace, said: "Whenever you conjecture, estimate the
[zakah] and ignore one-third. If you do not, then leave [at
least] one-fourth." This is narrated by Ahmad and the
authors of Sunan, except for Ibn Majah. It was also reported
by al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban, and they both authenticated it.
Commenting on the status of the report, atTirmizhi says:
"The hadith reported by Sahl is the one enacted or
followed by most scholars." Bashir ibn Yassar said:
"When 'Umar ibn al-Khattab appointed Abu Hathamah
al-Ansari to estimate the property of Muslims, he told him:
'Whenever you see that the people have left some dates
unplucked for autumn, leave them for the people to eat, and do
not estimate the zakah on them.' "
Makhul said: "Whenever the Messenger of Allah, upon
whom be peace, assigned someone to estimate, he would say: 'Be
easy on the people, for some of their property [trees] could
be barren, some low, and some for [their] eating.' " It
was narrated by Abu 'Ubaid, who added: "The low palm tree
is called as-sabilah and allows its fruit to be plucked by
passers-by. The eating tree (al-akilah) is a palm tree
especially designated as an eating tree for the owner's family
or for whoever is attached to them."
It is permissible for the owner to eat from the grain, and
whatever he consumes will not be included in the quantity
subject to zakah, for this is a long-standing custom. In any
case, only a small amount is actually eaten. It is the same as
an owner of a fruitbearing tree eating some of its produce.
Therefore, the zakah will be estimated on the actual amount
after he harvests the crop and husks the seeds. Ahmad was
asked about the eating of farik (rubbed green wheat) by the
owner, and he answered that there is no harm if the owner eats
what he needs. This is also the opinion of ash-Shaf'i,
al-Layth and Ibn Hazm. However, Malik and Abu Hanifah hold
that the owner will have to account for what he eats.
Scholars agree that various kinds of fruit can be combined
even if their quality is different--that is, excellent or bad
in quality. Different kinds of raisins may also be combined
together, and so can the various kinds of wheat and cereals.
They also agree that merchandise and its cash value
received can be combined. Ash-Shaf'i allows combining goods
and cash only when purchased because the nisab is calculated
upon that. Scholars also do not allow the combination of
certain categories with others in order to attain a nisab,
with the exception of grains and fruits. That is why one
category of animals cannot be combined with another. For
example, camels cannot be added to cattle to complete a nisab,
nor can fruit be combined with raisins.
Scholars have different points of view in regard to
combining various types of grains with one another. The best
and the most correct opinion is that no two things can be
combined to calculate a nisab. The nisab must be considered on
every category by itself. This is because there are various
categories and many kinds. Therefore, barley cannot be added
to wheat, nor can the latter be added to the former, which is
also true of dates and raisins, and chickpeas and lentils.
This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, ash-Shaf'i, and Ahmad,
according to one of the reports. Most of the early scholars
hold this opinion.
Ibn al-Munzhir says that most scholars concur that camels
cannot be combined with cattle or sheep, or cattle with sheep,
nor dates with raisins. Thus, there can be no combining of
different kinds of produce or animals. Those who allow such a
practice do it without any authentic proof.
Zakah is due on plants when the grains mature and are ready
to be rubbed off and on the fruit when it is ripened. In the
case of dates, for example, the indication will be their
brightness or red color, and with grapes their sweetness.
Zakah becomes due only after grains are husked or the fruit
becomes dried. If the farmer sold his grain after it had
matured, and the fruit after it had ripened, then its zakah
will be paid by him and not the buyer. This is because the
obligation to pay zakah became due when the produce was still
in the owner's possession.
Allah, the Exalted One, commanded those paying zakah to set
it aside from the good portion of their property and forbade
paying it from the bad portion. He says: "O you who
believe! Spend of the good things you have earned and from
that which We bring forth from the earth for you, and seek not
the bad [with intent] to spend thereof [in charity] when you
would not take it for yourselves save with disdain. And know
that Allah is free of all wants and worthy of all praise"
[alBaqarah 267].
Abu Dawud, an-Nasa'i and others reported from Sahl ibn
Hanif from his father that: "The Messenger of Allah, upon
whom be peace, forbade paying zakah with two kinds of dates
called ju'rur and habiq. People used to set aside the worst of
their fruit for sadaqah but were later on forbidden to do this
by Allah: 'And seek not the bad [with intent] to spend thereof
[in charity]' [al-Baqarah 267]."
While mentioning this verse, al-Bara' said: "This was
revealed in relation to us [al-Ansar--the Helpers], because we
were owners of palm trees. A man may bring from his palm trees
[dates] depending on how much he had, a cluster or two, and
hang it at the mosque, and the people of the Saffah who had no
food would come to the cluster and beat it with their rod. The
green and unripe dates would fall off and they would eat them.
There were people who did not seek good. Someone would bring a
cluster of bad or inferior quality dates [shis and hashaf] or
an already-broken cluster [before it had ripened] and hang it
at the mosque. At this time, Allah revealed the 'ayah: 'And
seek not the bad [with intent] to spend thereof [in charity]
when you would not take it for yourselves save with disdain'
[al-Baqarah 267]." Al-Bara' continued: "If one of
you receives as a gift something similar to what he gives
away, he would not accept it except out of feigned
pleasure." Said al-Bara': "As a result of that, each
one of us used to offer the good part of what he had." It
was narrated by at-Tirmizhi who said: "It is good and
sound."
In his summation of the subject, ash-Shaukani says:
"This [the preceding hadith] means that the owner is not
allowed to set aside the bad from the good on which zakah is
due, especially in regard to dates as well as, by analogy, the
various other categories on which zakah is due. Furthermore,
the collector of zakah is not allowed to take it.
Most scholars say that there is no zakah on honey.
AlBukhari, for one, states: "There is no authentic
tradition concerning zakah on honey." Ash-Shaf'i
explains: "In my view, no zakah is levied on it because
there is no evidence in the traditions (sunan and 'athar) for
doing so. Thus, it was exempted." Ibn al-Munzhir affirms:
"There is no tradition (khabar) which states that zakah
must be paid on honey, nor is there a consensus. Therefore,
there is no zakah on honey. This is the opinion of most
scholars."
The Hanafiyyah and Ahmad are of the opinion that honey is
subject to zakah, even though there is no evidence for this
view in any tradition, except for some traditions ('athar)
which support each other. Their reason is that since it is
produced from blossoms, trees, and flowers and weighed and
stored like other types of produce, zakah is due on it. They
also say it is subject to zakah because the cost of producing
it is less than the cost of growing fruits and plants. Abu
Hanifah made it a condition that when zakah is due on honey,
it should only be collected on honey produced on tithe land.
However, he did not stipulate any nisab for it. If this is so,
then reason dictates that it should be a tithe due on any
amount. Imam Ahmad, on the contrary, stipulated that it should
attain a nisab equal to ten 'afraq. One faraq equals sixteen
Iraqi pounds. It makes no difference whether it is produced on
kharaj or 'ushr land. Abu Yusuf contends: "Its nisab is
ten pounds but Muhammad maintains: "It is five
'afraq." One faraq equals thirty-six pounds.
The
materials provided here are ONLY
extracts of Arabic-English
Dictionary Of Sheikh Adelabu
(Ph. D. Damas). Fully
edited versions and better
formats are available upon
written requests from awqafafrica.com
and Awqaf Africa Muslim Open
College, London.
Alphabetical
Entries Indexed For
Arabic-English Dictionary Of
Sheikh Adelabu (Ph. D. Damas) ::
ألفبيات
مادّات
مفهرسة
للقاموس
العربي
الإنجليزي
للشيخ
أديلابو
-
دكتوراه
من
دمسق
Studying
Grammars And Linguistics Of The
Kitaab And Sunnah Under Sheikh
Adelabu, Ph. D. Damas
Users
or reproducers of this
Arabic-English Dictionary Of
Sheikh Adelabu (Ph. D. Damas)
for the purposes of Da'wah and
Islamic Studies do not need a
permission. However, awqafafrica.com
suggests users or reproducers
quote this site and/or the sole
author of this dictionary -
Sheikh Adelabu (Ph. D. Damas).
This dictionary is not for
commercial gains or profit
making. It's intended by
our Sheikh to be an act of 'Iba^dah.
May Allah accept it from our
Sheikh
The Encyclopedic Dictionary Of As-Sunnah
- Hadith By Sheikh Adelabu
(Ph. D. Damas) is only available
on this portal to proven Du'aat
and known or recommended students
of Knowledge. Learned
individuals can acquired all
volumes and full packages of the
Encyclopedia.
Arabic
English Dictionary Of Sheikh
Adelabu (Ph. D. Damas) ::
قاموس
عربي -
إنجليزي
للشيخ
أديلابو
-
دكتوراه
من
دمشق -