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.
ICTruth.info