Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > Wealth subject to zakat: types, nisabs and rates > Livestock, gold, silver and trade goods
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
This chapter of the fiqh encyclopedia (al-Mawsua al-fiqhiyya) covers the categories of wealth subject to zakat: the conditions of its obligation on animals, the nisabs and rates due on camels, cattle, money, gold and silver, other precious materials, jewelry and trade goods. Each question is treated with the positions of the four schools, the hadiths and their takhrij, and the references of the classical works in parentheses. The translation is faithful to the substance of the original sheets.
As for the horse: five dirhams are taken into consideration, with the hawl and the nisab reckoned by value from the beginning of the hawl, if one pays the value in dirhams. If one pays by number, without valuation, he pays for each head, that is for each horse, one dinar once its hawl is complete.
This is supported by what is reported from Jabir, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: 'For every horse grazing freely, a dinar or ten dirhams'. Another narration from him states that the choice in this matter belongs to the payer.
For every horse grazing freely, a dinar or ten dirhamsA fabricated hadith, reported by al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (2/125)
As for mules, donkeys and other kinds of animals, there is no zakat on them if they are not intended for trade, according to all the schools. The conditions for the obligation of zakat on livestock are then as follows.
Two further conditions are required here. The first is free grazing (sa'imah): the animal feeds itself on the plants of the land. If the animal is fed by its owner, the scholars have differed.
The majority among the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis held that there is no zakat on the fed animal: expenses pile up on it, so that growth vanishes in the true sense, unless the owner prepares it for trade, in which case the zakat of trade applies to it. The Malikis held that zakat is due on the fed animal like the freely grazing one, without distinction.
Ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, explained the cause of the disagreement: it is the opposition of the absolute text to the restricted one, and the opposition of qiyas to the generality of the wording. The absolute text is the Prophet's words: 'On forty sheep, one sheep'. The restricted text is his words: 'Zakat is due on sheep grazing freely'. Whoever gives precedence to the absolute over the restricted says that zakat is due on the grazing animal as on the fed one; whoever gives precedence to the restricted says it is due only on the grazing one.
On forty sheep, one sheepReported by Abu Dawud (1568), Ibn Majah (1805) and al-Tirmidhi (621), and authenticated by al-Albani in Sahih Ibn Majah (1461)
Zakat is due on sheep grazing freelyReported by Abu Dawud (1567), authenticated by al-Albani in Sahih Abi Dawud (1385)
It also appears that one of the causes of the disagreement is the opposition between the exclusion indicated by the wording and the generality. The exclusion indicated by the words 'Zakat is due on sheep grazing freely' implies that there is no zakat on what does not graze freely. The generality of the words 'On forty sheep, one sheep' implies that the grazing animal here ranks like the fed one. But the generality is stronger than the indication of exclusion, just as giving precedence to the restricted over the absolute is more common than the reverse.
Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm held instead that the absolute prevails over the restricted, and that zakat is due on sheep whether grazing freely or not, and likewise on camels, by the Prophet's words: 'There is no sadaqa in less than five beasts among camels'.
There is no sadaqa in less than five beasts among camelsReported by al-Bukhari (1447) and Muslim (979)
As for cattle, no athar was established about them, so one must hold there the reported consensus, namely that zakat is due only on those grazing freely, which makes the distinction between cattle and the other animals a third view. As for the qiyas opposed to the generality of the words 'On forty sheep, one sheep', it rests on the fact that the freely grazing animal is the one whose growth and profit are sought, and that zakat is only the surplus, which is found most of all in wealth that grazes freely; that is why the hawl was made a condition for it. Whoever particularizes this generality by that qiyas does not oblige zakat on the fed animal; whoever does not particularize it, and holds the generality to be stronger, obliges it on both categories. This is what they disagreed about regarding the animal on which zakat is due (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/347-348; see Fath al-Qadir 1/509, Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/432, Sharh al-Minhaj 2/14, al-Ishraf 1/163, Kashshaf al-Qina 2/212, al-Ifsah 1/305, al-Mughni 2/347).
Working animals (al-'awamil) are those used for ploughing or carrying. Camels prepared for load and riding, milch camels (al-nawadih), and cattle used for ploughing and watering: there is no zakat on them according to the majority of jurists, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, by the hadith: 'And nothing is due on working animals', an authentic hadith reported by Abu Dawud (1572), and by the hadith of Bahz ibn Hakim: 'For every forty camels grazing freely, a bint labun', a hasan hadith reported by Abu Dawud (1575): the Prophet restricted it to free grazing, which shows that there is no zakat on what is outside it.
The Malikis held that work does not prevent zakat on livestock, by the generality of the hadiths on camels and cattle: 'On cattle, for every thirty a tabi' and for every forty a musinna', an authentic hadith reported by Abu Dawud (1576), al-Tirmidhi (622), al-Nasa'i (2450) and Ibn Majah (1803); al-Dasuqi transmits Abu Dawud's wording: 'Mu'adh reported that the Prophet, when he sent him to Yemen, ordered him to take from the cattle, of every thirty, a tabi' or a tabi'a, and of every forty, a musinna'; and the hadith: 'On every five beasts, one sheep', which did not single out the working animal from the others.
A lexicographical note accompanies this last hadith. Al-Shawkani, may Allah have mercy on him, reports in Nayl al-Awtar (4/182) that dhawd, as a plural, denotes according to the majority a group of three to ten beasts, with no singular of the same wording, and according to Abu Ubayda from two to ten, specific to females. Sibawayh explains the form of the plural, and al-Qurtubi traces the word to the root meaning to repel: the animal repels from its owner the exposure to poverty and the hardship of need. Ibn Qutayba denied that the word is used for the singular, while Abu Hatim al-Sijistani compared its plural to forms like 'three hundred', without analogy. Al-Qurtubi concludes that dhawd is plainly singular in form, but al-Hafiz reports that the best-known view of the early scholars is that it is not used for the singular.
Another argument supports the Maliki view: using the grazing animal is an extra gentleness and an additional benefit accruing to the owner; this does not entail withholding zakat but rather confirms its obligation (al-Tamhid 20/124, 147; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/432; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama of al-Tahawi 1/411; Majmu al-Fatawa 25/36; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/268; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 1/509; Sharh al-Minhaj 2/15; al-Mughni 3/344; Kashshaf al-Qina 2/184; Manar al-Sabil 1/180; al-Ifsah 1/305).
The scholars agreed that the first nisab of camels is five. Five camels entail one sheep; ten, two sheep; fifteen, three sheep; twenty, four sheep, up to twenty-four. At twenty-five a bint makhad is due, up to thirty-five. At thirty-six, a bint labun, up to forty-five. At forty-six, a hiqqa, up to sixty. At sixty-one, a jadha'a, up to seventy-five. At seventy-six, two bint labun, up to ninety. At ninety-one, two hiqqa, up to one hundred and twenty. This is the amount on which the scholars agreed (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/356; al-Ifsah 1/306; al-Majmu 6/532; al-Mughni 3/342). What exceeds one hundred and twenty was disputed, as will come, Allah willing.
The agreed amounts are set out as follows:
On these numbers and amounts the consensus of the scholars settled.
Abu Hanifa held that the obligation restarts after one hundred and twenty. The meaning of this resumption is that nothing is due on what exceeds one hundred and twenty until the increase reaches five; when it reaches five, one sheep becomes due in addition to the earlier due: the two hiqqa for the one hundred and twenty, and the sheep for the five. At one hundred and thirty, two hiqqa and two sheep are due; at one hundred and thirty-five, two hiqqa and three sheep; up to one hundred and forty, two hiqqa and four sheep. At one hundred and forty-five, two hiqqa and a bint makhad: the two hiqqa for the one hundred and twenty, and the bint makhad for the twenty-five, as in the first due. At one hundred and fifty, three hiqqa are due. Beyond that the obligation restarts: one sheep for every five, with the three hiqqa, until two hundred, where four hiqqa are due; then the obligation restarts again, as it did after one hundred and fifty.
Abu Hanifa supported this by the hadith of Amr ibn Hazm, from his father and his grandfather, from the Prophet: 'When the camels exceed one hundred and twenty, the obligation restarts; what is less than twenty-five of them falls on the sheep: for every five beasts, one sheep'. This hadith is weak: reported by Abu Dawud in al-Marasil (1066), and by al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (4/94) and in Marifat al-Sunan wa-l-Athar (3/222), it was weakened by al-Tahawi in Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar (4/375), who transmits its text as written in the letter the Prophet wrote to Amr ibn Hazm on the dues of camels: at ninety camels, two hiqqa until they reach one hundred and twenty; beyond that, a hiqqa for every fifty; the surplus reverts to the first obligation of camels; and what is less than twenty-five falls on the sheep, for every five beasts one sheep.
The details of Abu Hanifa's madhhab, may Allah have mercy on him, for what exceeds one hundred and twenty, are as follows:
After two hundred the obligation restarts: one sheep for every five; and on this pattern, each time the increase reaches fifty, a hiqqa is added to the due, then the zakat restarts with the sheep, then a bint labun is due on it.
Al-Shafi'i and Ahmad, in the more apparent of his two narrations, held that an increase of a single animal changes the due: on one hundred and twenty-one camels, three bint labun are due. They rely on the hadith of Anas in Abu Bakr's letter: 'If they exceed one hundred and twenty, then for every forty a bint labun, and for every fifty a hiqqa'; and a single animal is already an increase. It is stated explicitly in the hadith of Ibn Umar:
If they are one hundred and twenty-one, three bint labun are due on themAn authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (1570)
Another narration from Imam Ahmad states that the due does not change except by an increase of ten: nothing is due on the increase until they reach one hundred and thirty. The two hiqqa thus remain for ninety-one up to one hundred and twenty-nine; at one hundred and thirty, a hiqqa and two bint labun are due. This is the choice of Abd al-Aziz among his companions, and on this view too are Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Salam and Muhammad ibn Ishaq.
Two narrations are reported from Malik, like the two narrations from Ahmad. The more apparent of them with his companions is what Ibn al-Qasim and Ibn Abd al-Hakam reported: if the camels exceed one hundred and twenty, the payer has the choice of taking three bint labun or two hiqqa. According to the other narration, reported by Abd al-Malik ibn Abd al-Aziz from him, the due does not change except by an increase of ten: at one hundred and thirty, a hiqqa is taken from every fifty and two bint labun from every eighty (al-'Inaya 2/172 ff.; al-Mabsut 2/152; al-Ishraf 1/156 ff.; al-Majmu 6/532 ff.; al-Mughni 3/355; al-Ifsah 1/307-308; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/356; al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/81). These numbers and amounts all came in the practical Sunna from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
Al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'The nisabs of the zakat of livestock hinge on the two hadiths of Anas and Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them'. Here first is the hadith of Anas: Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, wrote this letter when he sent him (toward al-'Ala) to Bahrain:
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy. This is the obligation of the sadaqa which the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, imposed upon the Muslims, and which Allah commanded His Messenger: whoever among the Muslims is asked for it in accordance with its terms should give it, and whoever is asked for more than it should not give. On twenty-four camels or fewer: sheep, one sheep for every five. From twenty-five to thirty-five: a female bint makhad. From thirty-six to forty-five: a female bint labun. From forty-six to sixty: a hiqqa, a she-camel in foal. From sixty-one to seventy-five: a jadha'a. From seventy-six, that is to ninety: two bint labun. From ninety-one to one hundred and twenty: two hiqqa, both in foal. If they exceed one hundred and twenty: for every forty a bint labun, and for every fifty a hiqqa. Whoever has only four camels owes no sadaqa unless their owner wishes. At five camels, one sheep is due. In the sadaqa of grazing sheep: from forty to one hundred and twenty, one sheep; from one hundred and twenty-one to two hundred, two sheep; from two hundred and one to three hundred, three sheep; beyond three hundred, one sheep for every hundred. If a man's grazing flock is short of forty by a single sheep, no sadaqa is due unless their owner wishes. On the ransom of captives, a quarter of the tenth; if it does not reach one hundred and ninety, nothing is due on it unless their owner wishesReported by al-Bukhari (1386), Abu Dawud (1567), al-Nasa'i (2447), Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (2290) and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (3266)
And in this same letter: 'Whoever owes a bint makhad and does not have one, while he has a bint labun, the bint labun is accepted from him, and the collector gives him twenty dirhams or two sheep. If he owes a bint makhad according to its terms and has a bint labun, it is accepted from him and he owes nothing else. Whoever owes the sadaqa of a jadha'a and has no jadha'a, while he has a hiqqa, the hiqqa is accepted from him, and he adds two sheep if they are easy for him, or twenty dirhams. Whoever owes the sadaqa of a hiqqa and has no hiqqa, while he has a jadha'a, the jadha'a is accepted from him, and the collector gives him twenty dirhams or two sheep. Whoever owes the sadaqa of a hiqqa and has only a bint labun, the bint labun is accepted from him, and he gives two sheep or twenty dirhams. Whoever owes a bint labun and has a hiqqa, the hiqqa is accepted from him, and the collector gives him twenty dirhams or two sheep. Whoever owes a bint labun and does not have one, while he has a bint makhad, the bint makhad is accepted from him, and he adds twenty dirhams or two sheep. No one-eyed animal, no animal with a defect and no billy goat is taken in the sadaqa unless the collector wishes; what is separated is not combined nor what is combined separated for fear of the sadaqa; and what came from two partners, the two of them take it back between them equally.'
Al-Nawawi says: 'Al-Bukhari reported it in his Sahih, scattered through the Book of Zakat, so I gathered it letter by letter' (al-Majmu 6/526). As for the hadith of Ibn Umar, Sufyan ibn Husayn reported it, from al-Zuhri, from Salim, from his father: 'The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, wrote the deed of the sadaqa and did not hand it to his agents before his death; he tied it to his sword; when he died, Abu Bakr acted by it until his death, then Umar until his death'. It contained: 'On five camels a sheep, on ten two sheep', and the rest of the hadith, with content like that of the hadith of Anas. This hadith is authentic: reported by Abu Dawud (1568) and al-Tirmidhi (621), who said: it is a hasan hadith and it is the one practiced upon by the majority of jurists; and by Ibn Majah (1798).
First, consensus is established: all Muslims agreed on the obligation of zakat on cattle. This consensus was transmitted by many scholars, among them Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Hubayra, Ibn Qudama, Abu Ubayd and others; no one differed about it in any era. Cattle are one of the categories of the beasts of an'am, so zakat is due on their freely grazing ones like camels and sheep. The disagreement concerns only the determination of the nisab and of the amount due (al-Ijma p. 29; al-Mughni 3/373; al-Ifsah 1/31; al-Amwal p. 379).
The four imams agreed that the first nisab of cattle is thirty; at thirty, a tabi' or a tabi'a is due; at forty, a musinna. The tabi' is the bovine that completed one year and entered the second, so named because it follows its mother; the musinna is the one that completed two years and entered the third; and nothing else is due on cattle besides these two. They rely on the hadith of Mu'adh, may Allah be pleased with him:
The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, sent me to Yemen and ordered me to take from every thirty cattle a tabi' or a tabi'a, and from every forty a musinnaReported by Abu Dawud (1576), al-Tirmidhi (623), Ibn Majah (1803) and al-Nasa'i (2450), authenticated by al-Albani in Sahih Abi Dawud (1394)
They then differed. Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad held that nothing is due besides the musinna up to fifty-nine; at sixty, two tabi' are due, up to sixty-nine; at seventy, a tabi' and a musinna; at eighty, two musinna; at ninety, three tabi'; at one hundred, two tabi' and a musinna. And so on forever: the due changes at every ten from tabi' to musinna.
Two things are narrated from Abu Hanifa. One follows the madhhab of the majority, and his two companions Abu Yusuf and Muhammad stand on this narration. According to another, nothing is due on what exceeds forty besides the musinna until fifty, when the musinna and a quarter are due. A third narration has the obligation apply to the excess over forty by calculation, up to sixty: for one animal, a quarter of a tenth of the value of a musinna; for three animals, three quarters of a tenth (al-'Inaya 2/179; al-Bada'i 2/446-447; Fath al-Qadir 2/178; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya p. 73; al-Istidhkar 3/189; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/360; al-Majmu 6/567, 569; al-Mughni 3/373-375; al-Ifsah 1/311).
The nisab of cattle according to the majority view is as follows:
If the number exceeds these amounts, a tabi' or a tabi'a is due for every thirty, and a musinna for every forty.
The chapter of gold and silver opens with the warnings against whoever does not pay their due. The hadith about the owner of gold and silver who is branded in Hell ends with these words: 'until judgment is passed among the servants, and his way is seen, either to Paradise or to the Fire'. All these threats target whoever does not pay the right of gold and silver.
If you have two hundred dirhams and the hawl passes over them, five dirhams are due on them, and nothing else is upon you, meaning in gold, until you have twenty dinars. If you have twenty dinars and the hawl passes over them, half a dinar is due on themAn authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (1558), al-Tirmidhi (616), al-Nasa'i (5/37), Ibn Majah (1790) and Ahmad (1/121)
There is no sadaqa in less than five awaq of silver, and the rest of the hadithReported by al-Bukhari (1484) and Muslim (979)
As for consensus: the Muslims agreed in every era on the obligation of zakat on the two currencies, gold and silver. This was transmitted by Ibn al-Mundhir and others (al-Ijma p. 30). And just as they agreed on the obligation of the zakat of gold and silver, they agreed on the amount due on them.
Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'We know of no disagreement among the people of knowledge that in the zakat of gold and silver a quarter of their tenth is due, that is 2.5 percent; this is established by the Prophet's words, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: 'And on the ransom, a quarter of the tenth'' (al-Mughni 3/526). Ibn al-Mundhir says: 'The people of knowledge agreed that on two hundred dirhams five dirhams are due' (al-Ijma p. 30).
Al-Wazir Ibn Hubayra, may Allah have mercy on him, adds: 'They also agreed that the first nisab of the categories of value, namely gold and silver, minted, in broken pieces, as tibr and as nuqra, is twenty gold dinars and two hundred silver dirhams. When the dirhams reach two hundred and the gold twenty dinars, and the hawl passes, a quarter of the tenth is due'. The tibr is the dust and scraps of gold and silver before they are cast; the nuqra is the molten lump of gold or silver (al-Ifsah 1/326; see al-Muwatta, Book of Zakat 1/246, and al-Umm 2/34).
First evidence: what Ibn Majah and al-Daraqutni reported from Ibn Umar and Aisha, may Allah be pleased with them: 'The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, used to take from every twenty dinars and upward half a dinar, and from forty dinars a dinar'. An authentic hadith, reported by Ibn Majah (1791) and al-Daraqutni (2/92).
Second evidence: what Amr ibn Shu'ayb reported, from his father and his grandfather, may Allah be pleased with them, from the Prophet: 'There is no sadaqa in less than twenty mithqal of gold, nor in less than two hundred dirhams'. An authentic hadith, reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (1291). The jurists then differed about the excess over the nisab of the two, that is the waqs.
The majority of scholars, namely the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, along with the two companions of Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, held that the zakat of the excess is due by calculation, however small the increase; otherwise there is waqs in gold and silver. Whoever has two hundred and ten dirhams thus owes five dirhams on the two hundred, and on the excess by its calculation, which in this example is a quarter of a dirham. They rely on the Prophet's words: 'If you have two hundred dirhams, five dirhams are due on them, until you have twenty dinars, on which half a dinar is due, and whatever exceeds is by that calculation', an authentic hadith reported by Abu Dawud (1573). And because the waqs in grazing livestock serves to avoid splitting them up (al-tashqis), which does no harm in the two currencies (al-Bada'i 2/17-18; al-Hidaya 1/103-104; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/209; Ibn Abidin p. 372; al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/455; Sharh al-Minhaj 2/22; al-Majmu 7/74, 92-93; al-Mughni 3/527; al-Ifsah 1/327).
Abu Hanifa held that the excess over the nisab is exempt: nothing is due on it until it reaches a fifth of a nisab. When the excess of silver reaches forty dirhams, one dirham is due on it; then nothing on the excess until another forty dirhams, and so on. Likewise in gold: nothing is due on the excess over twenty mithqal until it reaches four mithqal. Al-Kasani, may Allah have mercy on him, specifies: if one exceeds the nisab of silver by an amount, nothing is due on the increase until forty, when one dirham becomes due in Abu Hanifa's view; and so on, one dirham for every forty.
Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and al-Shafi'i held that zakat is due on the increase by its calculation, small or great, to the point that if the increase is one dirham, a fraction out of forty of that dirham becomes due. The question was disputed among the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them: what is reported from Umar is like Abu Hanifa's view, and from Ali and Ibn Umar like theirs. There is no disagreement about grazing livestock: nothing is due on their excess over the nisab until it reaches a nisab.
Those who argue for calculation on the excess rely on what is reported from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet: 'What exceeds two hundred is due by that calculation'. This is an explicit text in this chapter, for the condition of the nisab was established as an exception to qiyas: zakat was instituted as gratitude for the blessing of wealth, and the meaning of the blessing is found in little as in much. Only the text made us know the condition of the nisab, and that text came on the original nisab; the excess therefore reverts to the original qiyas, except that the excess of grazing livestock is not counted until it reaches a nisab, to ward off the harm of partnership: for partnership over physical bodies is a flaw, and that meaning does not exist here, in divisible money.
Abu Hanifa has in his favor what the Messenger of Allah said in the letter of Amr ibn Hazm: 'When they reach two hundred, five dirhams are due on them, and one dirham for every forty; there is no sadaqa in less than forty'. Reported with these words by Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla (6/13), and in close wording by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (6559). It is also reported that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said to Mu'adh when sending him to Yemen: 'Take nothing from the broken pieces; if the silver reaches two hundred dirhams, take five dirhams from it, and take nothing from the excess until it reaches forty dirhams, of which you will take one dirham'. This hadith is weak: reported by al-Daraqutni (1903).
Abu Hanifa's argument is that the original is that after every nisab there is an exemption, out of consideration for the owners, as with grazing livestock; and because reckoning broken pieces involves hardship, which is to be repelled. As for the hadith of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, no trustworthy narrator raised it to the Prophet; they even doubted whether 'what exceeds two hundred is due by that calculation' is the Prophet's word or Ali's. If it is the Prophet's word, it is a proof; if it is Ali's, it is not, for the question was disputed among the Companions, and the word of some is not invoked against others. It thus becomes clear that this saying cannot oppose what we have reported.
The discussion closes on this objection: gratitude for the blessing was mentioned; the answer is what was said before: the meaning of the blessing is enjoyment, which is not obtained below the nisab, and which is not annulled in grazing livestock; that is a qiyas opposed to the text, and so invalid, and Allah knows best (al-Bada'i 2/17-18). The scholars then differed, in two views, on combining gold with silver to complete the nisab, and on adding trade goods to them.
The majority of scholars, namely the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis in one of the two narrations, held that gold and silver are combined, one with the other, to complete the nisab. Whoever has fifteen mithqal of gold and one hundred and fifty silver dirhams owes zakat on both; likewise if he has the nisab of one and wealth of the other reaching the nisab: both are zakated together. For each of the two stands in the place of the other, being the price of things and the value of lost property: ownership of one is like ownership of the other, as for one who owns several kinds of gold, good or poor, as tibr or minted. The zakat of both is a quarter of the tenth in every case; and whoever has one hundred dirhams and trade goods worth one hundred dirhams adds them to the dirhams and zakats all of it. Gold here takes the place of the value of the goods: their purposes and their zakat agree, so they are like two kinds of one genus.
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the second narration held that no zakat is due on either of the two kinds, gold or silver, until it alone completes a nisab, even if one owns two hundred dirhams less one, or twenty mithqal less half, or the like: no zakat on either. They rely on the Prophet's words: 'There is no sadaqa in less than five awaq'; for these are two wealths whose nisabs differ, so neither is combined with the other, unlike the categories of livestock.
Those who accept combining then differed: is gold combined with silver by the parts, or by value? Malik, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Ahmad in one narration held that the combining is by the parts. Whoever has fifteen mithqal of gold and fifty dirhams of silver owes zakat: the first is three quarters of a nisab and the second a quarter, so a nisab is completed from them. Likewise for a third of the nisab of one and two thirds of the other, and similar cases.
Abu Hanifa and Ahmad in a narration held that one of the two is combined with the other by valuation, according to whichever is more advantageous to the poor, that is the greater is combined with the lesser. Whoever has half the nisab of silver, one hundred dirhams, and a quarter of the nisab of gold, five dinars worth one hundred dirhams, owes zakat: for combining requires homogeneity between gold and silver, and that homogeneity is realized by value, not by form, so the combining is done by it.
Al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'There is no zakat on anything other than gold and silver among the jewels, such as ruby, turquoise, pearl, coral, emerald and peridot, nor on iron, brass and the other coppers, nor on glass, however fine the workmanship and high the value. There is likewise no zakat on musk or ambergris. Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, says in al-Mukhtasar: 'Nor on an ornament taken from the sea'. Our companions say: its meaning is everything extracted from it, and there is no zakat on it; there is no disagreement among us on any of this, and this is the view of the majority of the early scholars and others'.
Ibn al-Mundhir and others transmit from al-Hasan al-Basri, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, al-Zuhri, Abu Yusuf and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh that they said: the fifth (khums) is due on ambergris. Al-Zuhri added: the same applies to pearls. Our companions transmit from Abdallah ibn al-Hasan al-Anbari that he said: the fifth is due on everything that comes out of the sea except fish. Al-Anbari reports two narrations from Ahmad. One follows the madhhab of the majority. According to the other, zakat is due on everything mentioned when its value reaches a nisab, even musk and fish.
The evidence of those who deny zakat: the original is that there is no zakat except on what the revealed law established for it. It is authentically established from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that he said: 'There is no zakat on ambergris; it is only something the sea cast out'. The verb denotes throwing and casting it away; this is the relied-upon evidence in the question. As for the hadith reported from Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father and his grandfather, from the Prophet: 'There is no zakat on a stone', it is very weak: al-Bayhaqi reported it and showed its weakness (al-Majmu 7/77, 87; al-Mughni 3/546-547; al-Iqna 2/167; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 2/77; Kashshaf al-Qina 2/223; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/424; al-Mubdi 2/358; al-Furu 2/365; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/239; al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/280; al-Istinjar 3/153).
After their consensus that women may wear all kinds of gold and silver jewelry, such as the collar, the necklace, the ring, the bracelet, the anklet, amulets, neck and throat ornaments, and everything worn around the neck and elsewhere, and all that women are accustomed to wear, with no disagreement on any of this (al-Majmu 7/117), the scholars differed, in two views, on the zakat of permissible jewelry that is worn and lent.
The first view is that of the majority of scholars: the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the sound view of their school, the Hanbalis in the madhhab, and Abu Ubayd; it is also reported from Jabir ibn Abdallah, Ibn Umar, Anas, Aisha, Asma bint Abi Bakr and others, may Allah be pleased with them: no zakat is due on permissible jewelry.
Its evidences are of four kinds. First, the original is freedom from obligations so long as no sound legal evidence has come; and such evidence is not found for the zakat of jewelry, neither in a text nor in a qiyas upon what is textually established. Second, zakat is due only on wealth that grows or is prepared for growth; jewelry is neither: it has left growth through craftsmanship, into jewelry that is worn, used and benefited from, like the working animals among camels and cattle, which left growth through their use in watering and ploughing, so zakat fell from them. The Maliki Qadi Abd al-Wahhab explains that what counts for the obligation of zakat is growth alone: zakat follows it, obligatory with its presence and falling with its absence; and what is not zakated in its substance itself, like goods, becomes zakatable as soon as its value and profit are sought; thus what is zakated in its own substance, when diverted from seeking growth, escapes zakat (al-Ishraf 1/176).
Third, this reasoning is supported by what is established from several Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, on the absence of any obligation of zakat on it:
Abu al-Walid al-Baji, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'This is an evident madhhab among the Companions, and the person most knowledgeable about it is Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her: she was the wife of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and nothing of his conduct in this was hidden from her. The same applies to Abdallah ibn Umar: his sister Hafsa was the wife of the Prophet, and neither the Prophet's conduct toward their jewelry nor its ruling was hidden from them' (al-Muntaqa 2/107). The spread of this view among the Companions and the Successors is shown by what Yahya ibn Sa'id said: I asked Amra about the zakat of jewelry, and she replied: I saw no one zakat it (al-Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba 2/383; see al-Amwal p. 442). Al-Hasan said: we know of none of the Successors who said that zakat is due on jewelry (same references).
Fourth, the words of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
O women, give sadaqa, even from your jewelryReported by al-Bukhari (1466) and Muslim (1000)
Ibn al-Arabi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'This hadith, on its outward meaning, establishes that there is no zakat on jewelry, by his words to the women: give sadaqa, even from your jewelry; for if sadaqa had been obligatory on it, he would not have given it as an example of voluntary sadaqa. One does not indeed say to men: give sadaqa, even from your grazing camels, or from the wheat the land produces, or from the dates the palms bear, so long as the sadaqa remains obligatory on these; examples are given only of things such as: give sadaqa, even from the milk of your cow, from your food and your surplus, and the like, on which the obligatory zakat is not due' (Sharh al-Tirmidhi 3/130-131; Fiqh al-Zakat 1/305).
The second view: the Hanafis, the Shafi'is in the sounder view, and the Hanbalis in a narration held that zakat is due on permissible jewelry when it reaches the nisab and the hawl passes, whether the jewelry is worn, hoarded or prepared for trade. Their evidences are of four kinds. First, the general texts of the Quran, such as the words of Allah the Most High:
And those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend it in the way of Allah, announce to them a painful punishment
Surah At-Tawbah, 34
The stern threat was attached to hoarding gold and silver and leaving their spending in the way of Allah, with no distinction between jewelry and other wealth; and every wealth whose zakat has not been paid is a treasure: whoever leaves zakat is thus a hoarder, and the threat applies only to leaving the obligatory. Jewelry is also wealth in excess of the essential need: preparing for adornment proves the surplus over the essential need; it is thus a blessing from which enjoyment is derived, and its gratitude is paid by giving part of it to the poor (al-Bada'i 2/418).
Second, the generality of the Prophet's words: 'And on the ransom, a quarter of the tenth', and of his words: 'There is no sadaqa in less than five awaq', from which it is understood by exclusion that sadaqa is due when they reach five awaq. Likewise the generality of his words on the zakat of gold:
There is no owner of gold or silver who does not pay what is due on it, except that on the Day of Resurrection plates of fire will be made for him and heated in the fire of Hell, and his side, his forehead and his back will be branded with them; each time they cool they are renewed for him, in a day whose measure is fifty thousand years, until judgment is passed among the servants and his way is seen, either to Paradise or to the FireAn authentic hadith, reported by Muslim (987)
Third, the hadiths that came on the zakat of jewelry in particular, and on the warning against not paying it:
Fourth, the athars reported from some Companions: a woman asked Ibn Mas'ud about her jewelry, is there zakat on it? He said: when it reaches two hundred dirhams, zakat it. She said: I have orphans in my care, shall I hand it over to them? He said: yes; reported by Abd al-Razzaq (4/83) and al-Tabarani (9/371), with a break in the chain. Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, wrote to Abu Musa: 'Order the Muslim women under your authority to give the sadaqa of their jewelry (in a narration: to zakat it), and let them not make gifts and additions a ground of rivalry among themselves'; reported by Ibn Abi Shayba (2/382), al-Bukhari in al-Tarikh al-Kabir (4/217) and al-Bayhaqi (4/139); al-Hafiz weakened it in al-Diraya and in the Takhrij of the hadiths of al-Hidaya (1/256), and says in al-Talkhis (858), after al-Bukhari: it is mursal; al-Hasan, that is al-Basri, moreover denied it, as Ibn Abi Shayba transmits: we know of none of the Successors who said that zakat is due on jewelry.
This disagreement among the scholars concerns permissible jewelry only. As for ornaments of gold or silver whose use is unlawful or disliked, such as vessels of gold and silver, the spoons and incense burners made of them and the like: zakat is due on them by the consensus of the Muslims, as al-Nawawi and others transmit (al-Majmu 7/113-114; see also al-Bada'i 2/417, Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama of al-Tahawi 1/429, Ahkam al-Quran of al-Jassas 4/303-304, Fath al-Qadir 2/215, al-Mudawwana 2/245-247, al-Istidhkar 3/151-153, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 8/126, al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya 1/69, al-Ishraf 1/176, al-Dhakhira 2/418, Jawahir al-Uqud 1/398, al-Umm 2/40, al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/271, 279, al-Mughni 3/531, al-Insaf 3/138-139, al-Ifsah 1/328).
The jurists include in the zakat everything prepared for trade, whatever it may be: whether of a kind on which the zakat of the substance itself (ayn) is due, like camels, cattle and sheep, or not, like clothes, donkeys and mules (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 1/526; Kashshaf al-Qina 2/239; Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Misriyya 1/277; al-Insaf 3/161). The zakat of trade goods (urud al-tijara) is obligatory by the Book, the Sunna and consensus.
As for the Book, the first evidence is the words of Allah the Most High:
O you who believe, spend from the good things you have earned and from what We have brought out of the earth for you
Surah Al-Baqarah, 267
Abu Bakr al-Jassas, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'It is reported from a group of the early generations, among them al-Hasan and Mujahid, about the words: spend from the good things you have earned, that it refers to trade. The generality of this verse obliges the sadaqa on all wealth, for the words: you have earned, embrace it' (Ahkam al-Quran 3/148). Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi says: 'The words: you have earned, mean trade, and: what We have brought out of the earth for you, means vegetation. This earning falls into two kinds: what comes from the belly of the earth, namely all vegetation, and what results from dealing upon the earth, such as trade, breeding, trading in the land of the enemy and hunting; Allah commanded the rich among His servants to give the poor from what He gave them, in the manner practiced by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him' (Ahkam al-Quran 1/469).
Al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'The outward sense of the verse indicates the obligation of zakat on every wealth a man earns: into it enter the zakat of trade, the zakat of gold and silver, and the zakat of livestock, for all of that is described as earned' (al-Tafsir al-Kabir 2/65). Al-Bukhari titled in his Sahih a chapter: 'The chapter of the sadaqa of earnings and trade, by the words of Allah the Most High: O you who believe, spend from the good things you have earned, up to His words: Praiseworthy'. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says: 'He thus composed this title restricting himself to the verse, without a hadith, as if pointing to what Shu'ba reported from al-Hakam, from Mujahid, about this verse: it means lawful trade' (Fath al-Bari 5/50).
The second evidence is the words of Allah the Most High:
Take from their wealth a sadaqa
Surah At-Tawbah, 103
Al-Mawardi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'The proof of the obligation of the zakat of trade is His words: Take from their wealth a sadaqa, and His words: in their wealth is a known due (Surah al-Ma'arij, 24); the wealths of trade are the broadest of wealths, and so the most worthy of obligation' (al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/606). Ibn al-Arabi says: 'His words: Take from their wealth a sadaqa, are general for every wealth, in all its categories, its names and its purposes; whoever wishes to particularize it by something must bring the evidence' (Sharh al-Tirmidhi 3/104). Abu al-Walid al-Baji says after citing the verse: 'This is general, and it is carried upon its generality except what the evidence particularizes' (al-Muntaqa 2/101). Al-Zarkashi says: 'The original basis for the obligation of the zakat of trade goods is the generality of His words: Take from their wealth a sadaqa' (Sharh Mukhtasar al-Kharqi 1/395). Al-Qurtubi says: 'His words: Take from their wealth a sadaqa, are absolute, unrestricted by any condition upon what is taken or from whom it is taken, nor specifying the amount taken or the source; the Sunna and the consensus specify that, and so zakat is taken from all wealths' (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 8/246).
As for the Sunna, the evidence for the obligation of the zakat of trade goods includes three hadiths in particular. The first is the letter of Samura ibn Jundub, may Allah be pleased with him, to his sons: 'In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy. From Samura ibn Jundub to his sons, peace be upon you. To proceed: the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, used to order us to take out the sadaqa from what we prepared for sale'. Reported by Abu Dawud (1562), al-Daraqutni (2/127), al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (4/146) and Ibn Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (17/131); al-Albani weakened it in Daf Abi Dawud (338). Mulla Ali al-Qari says: 'It contains an evident indication of the obligation of the zakat of trade' (Mirqat al-Mafatih 6/92). Ibn Abd al-Barr says: 'Among the proofs of the obligation of the sadaqa on trade goods, besides what preceded of the practice of the two Umars, may Allah be pleased with them, is the hadith of Samura ibn Jundub from the Prophet, mentioned by Abu Dawud and others with a hasan chain from Samura' (al-Istidhkar 3/170).
The second is what Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, reported: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, say: on the camels their sadaqa, on the cattle their sadaqa, on the sheep their sadaqa, and on the cloth (al-bazz) its sadaqa'. Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad (5/1179), Ibn Abi Asim in al-Jihad (85), al-Bazzar in his Musnad (9/340), al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (2/100, 102), al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1/545) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (4/147); al-Albani weakened it in Tammam al-Minna (363). The bazz designates clothes or household linen, and so includes fabrics. Al-Mawardi says: 'It is known that the bazz is not subject to the zakat of the substance: it is therefore established that the zakat of trade is due on it' (al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/383).
The third is the hadith of Abu Hurayra, may Allah be pleased with him: the Messenger of Allah ordered the sadaqa, and it was said that Ibn Jamil, Khalid ibn al-Walid and al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib withheld it. The Prophet said:
Ibn Jamil withholds only because he was poor and Allah and His Messenger enriched him. As for Khalid, you are unjust to Khalid: he has kept his coats of mail and his war equipment in the way of Allah. As for al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, the uncle of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, the sadaqa is upon him, and the like of it along with itReported by al-Bukhari (1399) and Muslim (983)
Al-Qadi Iyad, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'It is said that Khalid was asked only for the price of his coats of mail and equipment, since they were intended for trade, and that the Prophet informed them that there is no zakat on them since he had kept them back. Herein is the establishment of the zakat of trade, the view of the majority of scholars, against some of the later ones; and Ibn al-Mundhir reported consensus on it' (Ikmal Mu'lim 3/983). Al-Nawawi explains that al-a'tad denotes, according to the lexicographers, the instruments of war, weapons and mounts; and that the meaning of the hadith is: they asked Khalid for the zakat of his equipment, supposing it was intended for trade and that zakat was obligatory on it; the Prophet informed them that they were unjust to him, for he had kept it and dedicated it in the way of Allah before the hawl passed, so no zakat was due on it. It is also possible that the meaning is: had zakat been due on him, he would have paid it without grudging, he who had dedicated his wealth to Allah of his own accord; some derived from it the obligation of the zakat of trade, and this is the view of the majority of scholars of the early and later generations, against Dawud, that is al-Zahiri (Sharh Muslim 7/56).
Al-Mawardi reports that the Prophet sent Umar ibn al-Khattab as collector, and that he returned complaining of Khalid ibn al-Walid, al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib and Ibn Jamil; the Prophet said: 'As for Khalid, you have been unjust to him: he kept his coats of mail and his equipment in the way of Allah', the a'tad being the horses; yet it is known that coats of mail and horses are not subject to the zakat of the substance, so it is established that the zakat of trade is due on them (al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/283). Al-Tayyibi says: 'There is here also a proof of the obligation of zakat on the wealths of trade; otherwise the Prophet would not have excused Khalid in this way when the zakat of trade wealth was demanded of him. His words: he devoted them in the way of Allah, mean that he dedicated them to preparing for jihad, not to trade, so no zakat is due on them; and it is you who are unjust to him by counting them among the trade goods and demanding their zakat' (Sharh al-Tayyibi ala al-Mishkat 5/1478). Badr al-Din al-Ayni says: 'Al-Bukhari also derived from it the inclusion of goods in the zakat: they supposed them intended for trade and demanded from him the zakat of their value' (Umdat al-Qari 10/82). There are other general hadiths demanding zakat on all wealths, without distinction between one wealth and another.
As for consensus: many of the people of knowledge transmitted it on the obligation of the zakat of trade goods. Ibn al-Mundhir says: 'The people of knowledge agreed that zakat is due on the goods intended for trade once the hawl passes over them' (al-Ijma p. 32). Abu Ubayd says: 'Such are the wealths of trade with us; and upon this the Muslims agreed that zakat is an established obligation upon them; as for the other view, it is not among the madhhabs of the people of knowledge with us' (al-Amwal p. 434). Ibn al-Qattan says: 'The people of knowledge agreed that zakat is due on the goods managed for trade once the hawl passes over them' (al-Iqna fi Masa'il al-Ijma p. 215). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya says: 'The four imams and the rest of the Ummah, apart from the deviants, agree on its obligation upon trade goods' (Majmu al-Fatawa 6/23). This consensus was also transmitted by al-Baghawi (Sharh al-Sunna 3/350), Ibn Abd al-Barr (al-Istidhkar 3/154), al-Tahawi (Sharh Mushkil al-Athar 6/24), Abu al-Walid al-Baji (al-Muntaqa 2/101), al-Zarqani (Sharh al-Muwatta 2/145) and Ibn Hubayra (al-Ifsah 1/331).
The first condition: that no other cause of zakat applies to them besides their being trade goods. Grazing livestock intended for trade, once it reaches the nisab, does not combine two zakats, by consensus, by the hadith: 'There is no repetition in the sadaqa', reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (1/465): zakat is not taken twice within the year.
The Malikis and al-Shafi'i, in his later view, apply to it the zakat of the substance: it is the stronger, for it is agreed upon by consensus, and its nisab is known with certainty by number and measure, unlike the zakat of trade, which is known by conjecture. Whoever has five camels intended for trade thus owes one sheep, regardless of value; if they are fewer than five, they are valued: if the valuation reaches a nisab of currency, the zakat of value is due on it. The Hanafis, the Hanbalis and al-Shafi'i, in his earlier view, apply to it the zakat of trade: it is more advantageous to the poor, for it is due on the excess by calculation, the cause of obligation already existing in what exceeds the nisab, as if the animals did not reach a nisab by grazing. The Hanbalis however specify: if the animals reach the nisab of grazing livestock while their value does not reach the nisab of currency, the zakat does not fall: the zakat of grazing livestock is due, like one who has five trade camels worth less than two hundred dirhams: one sheep is due on them (al-Mughni 4/11; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ala al-Sharh al-Kabir 1/472; al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/411; al-Majmu 7/130, 132; Sharh al-Minhaj 2/31).