Most scholars stipulate that zakah is not payable on anything extracted from the
sea, such as pearls, corals, chrysalite, cachalot's ambergris, fish, and so on.
There is, however, a report from Ahmad that if the amount extracted reaches a nisab,
then zakah is due on it. Abu Yusuf agrees with him in the case of pearls and cachalot's
ambergris. Ibn 'Abbas holds that there is no zakah of cachalot, beacause it is an
object thrown out by the sea. Jabir said that there is no zakah on cachalot, but
that it is a free spoil for anyone who finds it.
When a person acquires property and it stays in his possession for a year and constitutes
a nisab, and he has no other property or he has similar property which has not reached
a nisab except when the acquired property has been added to it, then the year hawl
of zakah becomes applicable to it from the time of its acquisition. The zakah will
be payable at the completion of the hawl. In such a case, the acquired property
may be classified in any of the following categories:
1. The acquired holdings increase in value either by profits from trade or by an
increase in animal production. These kinds of holdings qualify themselves for the
application of the hawl and zakah. For the individual whose merchandise or animals
constitute a nisab and whose business also makes a profit or whose animals reproduce
during the course of the hawl, he should count the original and additional property
as one for the purpose of zakah. There is no dispute about this among scholars.
2. As for the acquired property which falls under the same category as the attained
nisab but is not derived or generated from it--that is, it was acquired through
purchase, gift, or inheritance-- Abu Hanifah holds that this may be combined with
the nisab in order to become a part of it with regard to the hawl and payment of
zakah. Thus, the principal property and the profits are collectively taxable.
Ash-Shaf'i and Ahmad suggest that newly acquired property be combined with the original
one for the purpose of attaining a nisab and that a new hawl has to be assumed for
it--whether the original consists of cash or animals. For example, if someone has
200 dirhams and manages to acquire another 200 dirhams during the year, he should
pay zakah on both at the completion of the hawl which will begin to roll at the
acquisition of new property. Malik's opinion is like that of Abu Hanifah's concerning
animals but like Ahmad's in regard to gold and silver.
3. The acquired holdings are not of the same kind that one already possesses. As
such, they cannot be combined with the original either for the nisab or for the
year count (hawl). If, however, the acquired holdings by themselves reach a nisab,
their year count will be calculated independently, and the owner will pay their
zakah at the completion of the hawl. In the absence of these conditions, nothing
is applicable to these holdings. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars.
The Hanafiyyah, the Malikiyyah, and a report from ash-Shaf'i and Ahmad propose that
it is the property which owes zakah. The second opinion attributed to ash-Shaf'i
and Ahmad is that zakah is the responsibility of the owner, not the property. The
difference between the two opinions is obvious:
For example, someone had 200 dirhams and did not pay zakah on the sum for two years.
The opinion which says that zakah is due on the property itself means that the amount
due is for one year only since it decreased by five dirhams, which was the amount
due for zakah at the end of the first year. The second opinion, that zakah is the
responsibility of the owner, means that he should pay zakah twice, one for each
year, as zakah is the responsibility of the owner and is not affected by the decrease
of the nisab.
Ibn Hazm favors the view that it is the owner's responsibility. There has been no
difference of opinion, he says, among the Muslims since the time of the Prophet,
upon whom be peace, down to his time as to the applicability of zakah on wheat,
barley, dates, silver, gold, camels, cattle, and sheep. Concerning payment of zakah
from a different lot of wheat, barley, dates, gold, silver, camels, cattle, and
sheep, he says it does not matter whether one pays it from the same lot, from a
different one in one's possession, or from a lot that may be bought, granted as
a gift, or borrowed.
The conviction that the payment of zakah is the owner's responsibility and is not
necessarily that of the property itself is a sound principle, for if it becomes
due on the property itself, the owner will not be permitted to make payment from
a different lot. It is similar to the case of one partner being prevented from giving
his money to his copartner from a source other than the one involved in their partnership--unless
the partners approve of it and it does not violate the conditions of the transaction
between them. Furthermore, if zakah has to be applied to the property itself, only
two situations can arise. First, zakah is payable on all parts of that property
and is applicable to any individual amount of it, without individual specification.
Second, if it is applicable to every part of it, it is impermissible to sell from
any herd or grain since zakah collectors in this case would become partners. Thus,
the proprietor is not allowed to take anything from it. This is void without any
dispute. Furthermore, it would become obligatory upon him to specify exactly the
price of the sheep which he desires to take out, just as is done in partnerships.
If zakah is due on any part of it other than the property itself, it becomes void.
This holds true in such a case since he does not know what he might sell or whether
he is taking what is due for the sadaqah collectors. This, in turn, backs up the
above.
Once zakah becomes payable on the holdings either because of the completion of a
year or harvest time, and the holdings or part of them are lost, the owner still
has to pay it. Whether the loss occured owing to negligence or not does not matter.
This is the opinion of Ibn Hazm and the better opinion of the Hanbaliyyah. Abu Hanifah
holds that it vitiates the payment of zakah if all the property perishes without
the owner's role in its destruction. When part of it perishes, the perished portion
is not subject to zakah. This is in accordance with the rule that zakah is associated
with the property itself. However, when the property is deliberately destroyed by
the owner, zakah has to be paid. Ash-Shaf'i, alHassan ibn Salih, Ishaq, Abu Thaur,
and Ibn al-Munzhir hold that if the nisab perishes before zakah is paid, then the
owner owes nothing. However, if it perishes subsequent to the accumulation of the
nisab, the owner has to pay it. Ibn Qudamah supports this view and says it vitiates
the payment of zakah if the property perishes without any negligence on the part
of the owner. This is because it is obligatory for the sake of beneficence, which
presupposes the existence of the property--and not with the purpose of impoverishing
the payers of zakah.
Negligence in this context implies that the owner had accumulated the nisab and
thus it was possible for him to pay zakah, but he did not and the property perished.
On the contrary, if he did not have the nisab, or the holdings were not in his possession,
or they were to be purchased and he could not, then this does not constitute an
act of negligence.
Likewise, if it is presumed that the obligation to pay zakah remains even after
the holdings are lost, and the owner has the means to pay it, then he must do so.
Otherwise, he should be granted a respite in order to fulfill his obligation to
pay zakah. This is akin to a debt one owes to someone but the debt owed to Allah
should be considered more important.
When a person sets aside zakah for distribution among the poor and all of it or
some of it is lost, he must repay it because it is still his responsibility.
Ibn Hazm says: "We received a narration from Ibn Abi Shaibah on the authority of
Hafs ibn Ghayath, Jarir, al-Mu'tamir ibn Sulaiman at-Taymi, Zaid ibn al-Hubab, and
'Abdulwahhab ibn 'Ata; also from Hafs, who narrated on the authority of Hisham ibn
Hassan from al-Hassan al-Basri; Jarir who reported, on the authority of alMughirah
from his companions; and al-Mu'tamir who reported from Mu'amar from Hammad; and
Zaid who reported from Shu'bah from al-Hakam; and 'Abdulwahhab who reported on the
authority of Ibn Abi 'Urubah from Hammad from Ibrahim an-Nakha'i that whoever sets
aside zakah from his property and then it is lost, his obligation to pay zakah still
remains to be discharged, and he must set it aside again."
There exists, however, another opinion on it: "We received a narration on the authority
of 'Ata' that the obligation will be discharged [if set aside and lost]," says Ibn
Hazm.
Ash-Shaf'i holds that anyone who does not pay zakah for a number of years must pay
it all together. Whether or not he is aware of its obligation or he happens to be
in a Muslim or non-Muslim land, makes no difference. Based on the opinion of Malik,
ash-Shaf'i and Abu Thaur, Ibn al-Munzhir says: "When unjust people rule a country
and the people of that country do not pay their zakah for a number of years, then
their new leader should take it from them."
It is not permissible to pay the value instead of the item itself, except in the
case of non-existence, for zakah is an act of worship which can only be fulfilled
according to the specified manner, with the rich sharing their wealth with the poor
Mu'azh reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, sent him to Yemen and told
him: "Take grain from grain, sheep from sheep, camels from camels, and cows from
cows." This hadith is narrated by Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, al-Baihaqi, and al-Hakim.
It should be noted that there is an interruption in the chain of this hadith, since
'Ata' did not hear it from Mu'azh.
Disapproving of substitution, ash-Shaukani says: "The truth of the matter is that
zakah is obligatory on the item itself and should not be substituted for its value
except where there is a valid excuse."
Abu Hanifah permits the acceptance of the value whether the individual owing could
pay it in the items itself or not because zakah is the right of the poor, and he
believed that it made no difference whether it was paid in the item or in something
else of equal value. AlBukhari reports, with a firm statement, that Mu'azh asked
the people of Yemen to give him either goods or clothes of silk or garments as zakah
instead of barley and corn because it was more convenient for them. The companions
of the Prophet, upon whom be peace, were also given the choice in Madinah.
When holdings are shared between two or more partners, zakah is not obligatory on
either one until all of them attain a nisab individually. This is the opinion of
most scholars. This does not include the combination of animals, which has been
discussed earlier.
The opinion of Malik, al-Auza'i, Ishaq, Ahmad, and Abu 'Ubaid is that whoever possesses
a nisab of any kind of property and then sells it before the completion of the year
hawl, or gives it away as a gift, or damages part of it with the intention of avoiding
its zakah, he still must pay its zakah. If he engages himself in any of the preceding
acts at a time when his obligation to pay zakah is about to mature, he will be forced
to pay it. If, however, any of the preceding acts happen at the beginning of the
hawl, this will not constitute an evasion, and he will be (legally) free from his
obligation to pay zakah.
Abu Hanifah and ash-Shaf'i hold that since the amount decreased before the end of
the hawl, zakah will not be paid on it. He would still be considered a wrongdoer
and disobedient to Allah for attempting to escape it. The early Muslims based their
rationale on the 'ayahs in which Allah, the Exalted One, says: "Lo! We have tried
them as We tried the owners of the garden when they vowed they would pluck its fruit
the next morning, and made no reservation [for the will of Allah]. Then a visitation
from your Lord came upon it while they were asleep. So the garden became a dark
and desolate spot in the morning, as if it were plucked" [alMulk 17-20]. Allah punished
those people for avoiding their obligation to the poor.
Zakah, as such, will still be due and the person has to pay it because his intention
was to deprive the poor of their share in his wealth. This would be similar to the
case of a man who divorces his wife during his terminal illness. His evil intention
calls for punishment as a redemptive act. Another case of a similar nature would
be that of a person who kills his benefactor so that he could have his inheritance.
In that case, Allah punishes him by depriving him of his inheritance.
ICTruth.info