Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > Wealth subject to zakat: types, nisabs and rates > Trade, crops and fruits
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
This chapter continues the study of the wealth subject to zakat: it covers the intention of trade, the nisab of trade goods and how their zakat is paid, then the whole of agricultural zakat (crops and fruits). It sets out, school by school, the produce subject to the tithe, the absence of hawl for harvests, the nisab and its estimation, the liable person, the rate according to the mode of irrigation, and the deductions allowed before collection. The schools' positions are reported faithfully, with their classical references and hadith attributions.
The jurists agree that the zakat of trade goods requires that their holder had, at the time of purchase or acquisition, the intention of trade. Not everything a person buys is trade goods: if he buys clothes to wear, furniture for his house, a mount or a car to ride, none of that is called trade unless with the purpose of selling it and profiting from it.
Preparing for trade involves two elements: an action and an intention. The action is selling and buying; the intention is the purpose of profit. Neither suffices alone: mere intention and desire for profit, without actually engaging in trade, do not suffice, and this is the view of the majority; Ibn Aqil and Abu Bakr, among the Hanbalis, however mentioned that personal-use goods become trade goods by mere intention, related as a report from Ahmad on the basis of the hadith of Samura (see al-Mughni (4/7) and al-Furu' (4/168)); and engaging in trade without intention or purpose does not suffice either.
The intention taken into account is the one accompanying the entry of the wealth into his ownership; for trade is an action, and an action requires the accompanying intention. If he acquires wealth for personal use then intends it for trade, it does not become trade goods; if he acquires it for trade then intends it for personal use, it becomes personal property and leaves the scope of zakat; if he later returns to it and intends it for trade, it reverts, for abandoning trade falls under relinquishment, and relinquishment is satisfied by intention alone, like fasting.
Abu al-Walid al-Baji said: wealth is of two kinds. One has its origin in trade, like gold and silver: it remains under the ruling of trade until it leaves it. The other has its origin in personal use, like goods, clothes, other animals and foods: it remains under the ruling of personal use until it leaves it. What originated in trade does not turn to personal use except by intention and action, the effective action here being transformation (shaping); and what originated in personal use does not turn to trade except by intention and action, the effective action here being buying and selling. Whoever buys goods without intending trade remains under the ruling of personal use until the intention of trade manifests in it.
Whoever inherits goods and intends them for trade remains under the ruling of personal use, because no action occurred to transfer it to trade; when he buys it for trade, intention and action combine and the ruling of trade is established (al-Muntaqa, commentary on the Muwatta (2/101)).
Ibn al-Qattan said in "al-Iqna' fi Masa'il al-Ijma'": the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and others agreed that whoever buys goods for personal use then intends them for trade owes no zakat on them (al-Iqna' (1194)). That is: no zakat is due by mere intention; the action of selling must accompany the intention. Al-Dasuqi said: because intention is a weak cause that transfers to the origin but not away from it, and the origin of goods is personal use. Ibn al-Humam said: since goods are not trade by nature, they only become so through the purpose of trading them.
The Malikis said: if he combines the intention of trade with the intention of exploiting the goods, intending at purchase to rent it out and selling it if he finds profit, zakat is due on it according to the preferred view among them; likewise if he combines trade and use, intending to benefit from the thing, such as riding a mount or living in a house, then sells it if he finds profit. They said: if he acquires it solely for use, or solely for its yield, or for both, or with no intention at all, no zakat is due on it.
The Hanafis held that if he buys something for use, such as a mount to ride, intending to sell it if he finds profit, that does not make it trade goods, unlike one who buys mounts in order to trade in them: if the latter rides one of them for himself until he finds the desired profit then sells it, his use does not remove it from trade; since the intention counted is that of the origin, what originated in acquisition and personal use does not become trade goods by mere desire to sell upon finding profit, and what originated in trade is not removed from trade by temporary use.
As for one who intends to convert a specific trade good to personal use, this intention alone suffices, for the majority of jurists, to remove it from trade goods and bring it into non-growing personal possessions (Ibn Abidin (2/10, 19), Fath al-Qadir (1/527), al-Mabsut (3/310, 311), al-Bada'i' (2/429), al-Majmu' (7/129), Hashiyat al-Dasuqi (1/472, 476), al-Sharh al-Saghir (1/412), Sharh al-Minhaj (2/28), al-Mughni (4/7), al-Furu' (4/168)).
The nisab of goods is assessed by value, estimated in gold or silver. There is thus no zakat on goods a person owns if their value is below the zakat nisab of gold or silver, unless he also owns gold or silver amounting to a nisab or completing one.
The jurists differed on whether trade goods are estimated in gold or silver. The Hanbalis, along with Abu Hanifa in a narration which is the madhhab position, chose the assessment most beneficial to the poor: the goods are estimated at whichever of the two values is higher, so that if, assessed in silver, they reach the nisab without reaching it in gold, they are assessed by whichever brings them to the nisab. They said: gold and silver, though equal as currencies and means of assessment, we preferred one of them by a weightier factor: consideration for the poor, and taking precaution is safer. Do you not see that if assessment by one of the two reaches the nisab and not the other, it is assessed by whichever reaches the nisab, out of consideration for the poor and precaution? The same applies here.
Abu Hanifa, in another narration, said the owner is given the choice of the medium of assessment, because the two currencies are equal in estimating the value of things. The rationale of this narration: zakat on trade goods becomes due in consideration of their monetary value, not their substance, and assessment seeks to know the measure of that value; the two currencies being equal therein, the choice belongs to the owner, who assesses by whichever he wishes. Do you not see that grazing animals, once numerous, that is when the herd reaches two hundred, leave the choice to the owner: if he wishes he pays four hiqqas (three-year-old she-camels), and if he wishes five bint laban (two-year-old she-camels)? The same applies here.
(Conclusion of the hoarding question, begun previously:) for what he has hoarded, the zakat is only claimed from him for a single year, at the time of sale and receipt of the price (al-Sharh al-Kabir (1/473, 474), Mawahib al-Jalil (2/320, 321), Bidayat al-Mujtahid (1/370)). As for the majority of scholars, Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad, they make no distinction between the hoarder and others: zakat is due from him every hawl. They prove it by the Prophet's saying:
"No zakat on wealth until the hawl has passed over it."
Once this is established, zakat is due from him at every hawl: it is wealth whose zakat became due in the first hawl; if it did not drop below the nisab and its quality did not change, its zakat becomes due in the second hawl, as if it had decreased from the start (al-Mughni (4/6), Bidayat al-Mujtahid (1/370), Majmu' al-Fatawa (25/16)).
On paying the zakat of trade goods, the jurists held that the principle is to pay it in cash, at the rate of a quarter of the tithe (2.5%) of their value; if he pays the zakat of the value from either of the two currencies, that suffices by agreement. If he pays by taking goods from the goods, the jurists differed: does that suffice or not?
The Malikis, the Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis held that taking goods from the goods does not suffice: what is required is to pay the zakat of the value of the goods, because the nisab is considered by value, and zakat is, with respect to it, like the substance ('ayn) in other wealths; and because zakat here increases with the value and decreases with it, without increasing with the increase of the goods or decreasing with their decrease (Mawahib al-Jalil (2/358), al-Ishraf (1/179), al-Majmu' (7/150), al-Mughni (4/7), al-Ifsah (1/332)).
Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi'i in an early view that al-Nawawi judged weak, held that the owner has the choice when the hawl completes: if he wishes he pays a quarter of the tithe of the substance; if he wishes, a quarter of the tithe of the value; for zakat attaches to it and he is given the choice between the two. Al-Kasani said: as for the description of what is required from trade wealth, what is required is a quarter of the tithe of the substance, which is the nisab according to our companions; some of our shaykhs said this is the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. According to Abu Hanifa's view, what is required is one of two things, the substance or the value: the owner has the choice when the hawl completes, paying a quarter of the tithe of the substance or of the value.
They built on one of the questions of the Jami' the following case: one who holds two hundred qafiz of wheat for trade, valued at two hundred dirhams, whose hawl completes without his paying its zakat, until the price changes, downward so that its value falls to one hundred dirhams, or upward until its value reaches four hundred dirhams. According to Abu Hanifa, if he pays from the substance he pays five qafiz, in increase and decrease alike, for that is what is required from the origin; if he pays the value, he pays five dirhams, in increase and decrease alike, because the value on the day of the hawl became established as what is due. According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, if he pays from the substance he pays five qafiz, in increase and decrease alike, as Abu Hanifa said; if he pays the value, he pays, in decrease, two and a half dirhams, and in increase ten dirhams, for the original obligation with them is a quarter of the tithe of the substance, and the liable person only has the authority to transfer to the value on the day of payment: the value is therefore assessed on the day of payment.
The correct position is that this is the madhhab of all our companions: their madhhab is that if the nisab perishes after the hawl, zakat lapses, whether of livestock or trade wealth; and if what is required according to Abu Hanifa were not the substance, the value would become fixed at the perishing of the substance, in accordance with the original rule of choosing between two things: if one perishes, the other becomes fixed. Likewise, if he gifts the poor a quantity equal to the nisab with no prior intention at all, zakat lapses for him; if what is required of the nisab were not the substance, it would not lapse, as when he gives away from the nisab less than the nisab. Likewise if he sells the zakat nisab of livestock while the collector is present: if he wishes he takes from the buyer, and if he wishes from the seller; and if what is required were not a quarter of the tithe of the substance, he would not have been entitled to take from anyone other than the buyer.
This shows that the madhhab of all our companions is that what is required is a quarter of the tithe of the substance, except according to Abu Hanifa: what is required at the hawl is a quarter of the tithe as wealth, not as substance. With the two of them, what is required is a quarter of the tithe of the substance in form and meaning alike, but the liable person has the right to transfer from the substance to the value at the time of payment (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' (2/430, 431), al-Mabsut (3/15)).
A third view exists among the Shafi'is, early, which al-Nawawi also judged weak: payment must be made from the goods themselves, the value not sufficing (al-Majmu' (7/150)).
The shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya was asked about a merchant: may he pay from his obligatory zakat a category of goods that the recipient needs? He answered: praise be to Allah, if he gives him dirhams, that suffices without doubt. As for giving him the value in goods, it is a matter of dispute: is it absolutely permitted, absolutely forbidden, or permitted in some cases for need or a prevailing interest? Three views exist in the madhhab of Ahmad and others, and the third is the most equitable of the views.
If the zakat recipient wants to buy a garment, and the owner buys him a garment with the zakat and gives it to him, he has acted well toward him; but if he himself values the clothes he owns and gives them to him, he may value them above their price, and the one who takes the clothes may not need them and sell them, incurring the town crier's fee, and may sell at a loss: that would be harm to the poor. As for the categories in which trade is conducted, it is permitted to pay their zakat in dirhams, by value; if he has no dirhams and gives their price by valuation, the most apparent view is that it is permitted, for he has shown kindness to the poor by giving them from his own wealth (Majmu' al-Fatawa (25/79, 80)).
The hadith cited previously concludes with: "and for what is watered by means of a drawing device, half the tithe" (narrated by al-Bukhari (1412)). The "athari" is what drinks through its roots from the land, without irrigation. And Jabir heard the Prophet say:
"For what the rivers and the clouds water, the tithes; and for what is watered by means of a drawing device, half the tithe."Narrated by Muslim (981)
Other hadiths bear on this as will come. As for consensus: the community agreed on the obligation of the tithe or half of it on what the land produces in general, even though the jurists differed on the details (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' (2/517), al-Mughni (3/466)).
The scholars agree on the zakat of dates (the palm's fruit) and grapes (the vine's fruit), wheat and barley once its conditions are met; Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abd al-Bar stated it. Ibn al-Mundhir said: they agreed that charity is obligatory on wheat, barley, dates and raisins (al-Ijma' (30)).
Ibn Abd al-Bar said: all the scholars, early and late, agreed on the obligation of zakat on wheat, barley, dates and raisins, and differed on the rest of the grains (al-Tamhid (20/148)). He also said: there is no dispute among the scholars, as far as I know, on the obligation of zakat on wheat, barley, dates and raisins; a group said there is no zakat on what is besides them (al-Istidhkar (3/227)). Ibn Qudama said: the people of knowledge agreed that charity is obligatory on wheat, barley, dates and raisins; Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abd al-Bar stated it (al-Mughni (3/466), al-Istidhkar (3/227)). They only agreed on this because of the hadiths that reached them.
The scholars then differed over what is beyond these four categories. Abu Hanifa and Zufar held that zakat (the tithe or half of it) is due on everything Allah brings out of the land whose cultivation aims at the growth of the land: fruits, grains, vegetables, sown seeds ('abazir) and other exploitations of the soil, excluding what is not customarily intended for that: firewood, herbs, Persian reed (unlike sugar cane), straw, the cotton plant, eggplant, watermelon seeds and seeds meant for remedies, like fenugreek and black cumin (shuniz). But if he intends, through any of these categories, to occupy his land for its development, zakat becomes due: the matter rests on intent.
It was not required that the produce be a food, nor that it dry and be stored, nor that it be measured by volume, nor that it be edible. The evidence of Abu Hanifa: first, the generality of Allah's saying:
"and of what We have brought out of the earth for you"
Surat al-Baqara, 267
with no distinction between products. Al-Fakhr al-Razi said in commenting this verse: the apparent meaning of the verse indicates the obligation of zakat on everything the land grows, which is Abu Hanifa's view; his argument by this verse is most manifest (al-Tafsir (al-Kabir) (7/65)). Next, Allah's saying:
"and give its due on the day of its harvest"
Surat al-An'am, 141
stated after mentioning the categories of edible produce of gardens, trellised and unplanted, of palms and crops, of olives and pomegranates; what most deserves that the due be carried on it are vegetables, for from them it is easy to give the due on the day of cutting; as for grains, payment is deferred to the day of cleaning (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' (2/530)). Third, the Prophet's saying: "For what the sky and the springs water, or which is 'athari, the tithe; and for what is watered by drawing, half the tithe" (an authentic hadith, cited previously), with no distinction between what keeps and what does not keep, what is eaten and what is not eaten, what is gathered and what is not; for its cultivation aims at the growth and exploitation of the land, which makes it like grain.
Ibn al-Arabi, the Maliki, supported this madhhab of Abu Hanifa in "Ahkam al-Qur'an" (755, 764). In his commentary on al-Tirmidhi he said: the strongest of the madhhabs in this issue is that of Abu Hanifa in evidence, the most encompassing for the destitute, and the most fitting in thanking for the blessing; the generality of the verse and the hadith lead to it (Sharh Sunan al-Tirmidhi (3/135)). Commenting the verse "and give its due on the day of its harvest" (Surat al-An'am, 141), he argued at length in support of Abu Hanifa's madhhab and against the others: "As for Abu Hanifa, he made the verse his mirror, saw the truth, and made it obligatory on all produce, whether nourishing or not; the Prophet made this clear in the generality of his saying: 'for what the sky waters, the tithe', and the rest of his words" (Ahkam al-Qur'an (2/283)).
Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the two companions of Abu Hanifa, held that zakat is due only on grains and what has a keeping fruit, meaning what remains a year without effort or sunning, of what is eaten: wheat, barley, sorghum (dhura), millet (dukhn), rice, jawars, lentils, mung bean (mash), cowpea (lubiya, which is the dukhn), chickpeas, burayy, chicory, dates, raisins and their like, sought for food and keeping a year, or generally beneficial: saffron, safflower ('usfur), pepper, cumin, mustard, coriander.
The tithe applies to them, and to sesame (simsim) the tithe: if it is pressed before the tithe is taken from it, it is taken from its oil, and nothing from the pressed residue; the same applies to olives. The tithe is due on walnuts, almonds, onions and garlic in the sound view; no tithe on remedies, like thyme (sa'tar), black cumin (shuniz), halfa and fenugreek; it has been said the tithe is due on black cumin, which is the black seed. Nothing on mallow (khitmi), indigo (wasma) and its seed, nor on ushnan, nor on what comes out of wood, like tar (qataran), salt-grain (salt), manna (qatt) and gum; nothing on the seed of eggplant and carrot, nor on the seeds of cucumber, watermelon and gourd, for these things serve only planting, not eating. And by the generality of the Prophet's saying:
"There is no charity on vegetables."Authentic hadith: narrated by al-Daruqutni (2/96), al-Bazzar in his Musnad (3/156), al-Tabarani in al-Awsat (6/100)
and this is an explicit text (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' (2/530), Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama of al-Tahawi (1/453), Tuhfat al-Fuqaha (1/495), al-Hidaya (1/109), Sharh Fath al-Qadir (2/242), al-Jawhara al-Nayyira (2/209, 210), Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/49, 50)).
The Malikis distinguished between fruits and grains: of fruits, zakat is taken only from dates and grapes; of grains, from wheat, barley, salt (selt), sorghum (dhura), millet (dukhn), rice, 'alas, and the seven legumes (qataniyat): chickpeas, fava beans, lentils, cowpeas (lubiya), lupins, peas (jullban) and vetch (basila); and the four oil-bearing plants: olive, sesame (simsim), safflower (qurtum) and radish seed (habb al-fujl): twenty kinds in all, and nothing is taken as zakat from any other. No zakat on walnuts, almonds, flax, clover (bersim), fenugreek, turnip (saljam) or figs.
Zakat ceases to be due on what is mentioned and the rest so long as they are not trade goods; otherwise he pays its zakat (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi with al-Sharh al-Kabir (1/447), al-Muwatta (1/273), al-Istidhkar (3/220), Minh al-Jalil (2/28), Hashiyat al-Adawi (1/600), Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil (2/168), al-Talqin (1/164), al-Dhakhira (2/441)).
The Shafi'is held that zakat is due on no crops or fruits except what is a staple food (qut), meaning what the body generally lives on, excluding what is eaten for pleasure or as medicine. The zakat of fruits is thus due only from grapes and dates, excluding the rest: it is not due on figs, apples, quinces, pomegranates, peaches, walnuts, almonds, bananas and their like, nor on the other fruits besides fresh dates (rutab) and grapes; for the fruit of the palm and the vine has a very great benefit: they are among the staple foods and the stored, sustaining wealth, like livestock among animals.
As for grains, it is due on none of them except what is eaten and stored: wheat, barley, rice, lentils, sorghum, chickpeas, fava beans and the like; and there is no zakat among them on vegetables. Al-Nawawi said: our companions said that vegetables, cucumbers, lupins, sesame, cumin, caraway and coriander fall outside the sustaining produce. Al-Bandaniji said: it is also called kusbara; added to them are cotton seed, flax seed, radish seed and their like: there is no zakat on any of that according to us, without dispute (al-Majmu' (7/52), Sharh al-Minhaj and Hashiyat al-Qalyubi (2/16)).
The Shafi'is prove it by the hadith of Mu'adh ibn Jabal, in which it is said:
"As for cucumbers, watermelons, pomegranates, reed and vegetables: they fall under the exemption granted by the Messenger of Allah."Narrated by al-Daruqutni (2/97), al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1/558), al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (4/129)
This hadith is judged weak: Ibn al-Jawzi mentioned it in "al-Tahqiq fi Masa'il al-Khilaf" (2/38) and said that Ibn Nafi' and Ishaq are weak; Yahya ibn Sa'id said: "Ishaq is an imitator worth nothing"; Yahya ibn Ma'in said: "he is nothing, his hadith must not be written down"; Ahmad and al-Nasa'i said: "his hadith is abandoned".
The Hanbalis, in the madhhab, hold that zakat is due on everything humans cultivate, of grains and fruits, provided it combines two descriptions: volume measurability and dry storability (that is, the possibility of storage). This covers seven types:
Zakat is not due on the rest: all vegetables; the fruits of apple, apricot, fig, mulberry, banana, pomegranate, orange and the rest of the fruits; nor on walnuts, which Ahmad stated explicitly because they are counted by number; nor on reed; nor on herbs, like radish, onion and leek; nor on the like of cotton, hemp, flax, safflower ('usfur), saffron, nor on the like of palm racemes, its spathes and its fibers.
The Hanbalis prove it by the Prophet's saying:
"There is no charity on what is below five wasq of dates or grain."Narrated by Muslim (979)
which indicates consideration of volume measurability; as for storage, it is because what is not stored does not see the blessing completed, for lack of lasting benefit. Ahmad related a narration, also transmitted from al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin and al-Sha'bi, held by the Kufans Ibn Abi Layla, Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Ibn al-Mubarak and Yahya ibn Adam, which Abu Ubayd followed: there is no zakat on anything outside these four categories, wheat, barley, dates and raisins; for what is beyond them has neither text nor consensus, nor does it fall under the meaning of an explicit text or an object of consensus, so one remains on the original principle; and because they are the greatest part of the staple foods, and nothing equals them in this meaning or in abundance of benefit, nothing can be analogized to them (al-Mughni (3/466, 468), Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat (1/414), Mutalib Uli al-Nuha (2/56), al-Ifsah (1/320, 321)).
The Hanbalis also argued from what Ibn Abi Shayba related from 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, from the Prophet: "The tithe applies to dates, raisins, wheat and barley" (Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf (2/370), no. 10021). Waki' related from 'Amr ibn Uthman, from Musa ibn Talha, that Mu'adh, upon arriving in Yemen, took zakat only from wheat, barley, dates and raisins (al-Musannaf (2/371), no. 10022). Waki' related from Talha ibn Yahya, from Abu Burda, from Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, that he took it only from wheat, barley, dates and raisins (al-Musannaf (2/371), no. 10023). Such reports can hardly be his personal opinion; it has moreover been related from Abu Musa, from the Prophet, in marfu' form (al-Istidhkar (3/228)).
They argued, except for Abu Hanifa, against zakat on vegetables and fruits by the Prophet's saying: "There is no charity on vegetables" (an authentic hadith, cited above); and against its being due on pomegranates, apples and the like of the fruits, by what reached about Sufyan ibn Abdallah al-Thaqafi, Omar's governor at Ta'if: he owned orchards of peach trees (firask) and pomegranates, producing several times the yield of the vine; he wrote asking about the tithe, and Omar wrote back to him that there is no tithe on them, and said: "they are among the exempted produce (ufat), all of it, with no tithe" (narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (4/125)).
The jurists agree that the hawl (the lunar year) is not required in the zakat of crops and fruits, by Allah's saying: "and give its due on the day of its harvest" (Surat al-An'am, 141). The hawl is not considered because the produce's growth completes with its harvest, not by its remaining: the produce is growth in itself, so zakat becomes due on it immediately, like minerals, unlike the other zakatable wealth in which the hawl was required only to allow investment (al-Mughni (3/405, 473)).
The nisab in the zakat of crops and fruits: the jurists differed on whether the produce must reach the nisab for zakat to become due, or zakat is due on the little and the much alike with no nisab required. The majority of scholars, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, along with the two companions among the Hanafis, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, and other scholars, held that zakat is not due on any crop or fruit until the nisab is reached, which is five wasq, by the Prophet's saying:
"There is no charity on what is below five wasq."Narrated by al-Bukhari (1413) and Muslim (979)
for it is wealth on which charity becomes due: it is therefore not due on the little, like the other zakatable wealths.
Abu Hanifa held that no nisab is required for the zakat of crops and fruits: it is due on the little and the much alike, so long as it is not less than half a sa', by the generality of his saying: "For what the sky waters, the tithe" (an authentic hadith, cited previously). Ibn Rushd said: the cause of their disagreement is the confrontation of the general and the specific. The general: "For what the sky waters, the tithe, and for what is watered by drawing, half the tithe" (an authentic hadith, cited previously); the specific: "There is no charity on what is below five wasq"; and the two hadiths are firmly established.
Whoever holds that the specific is built upon the general says: the nisab is required, and this is the well-known position. Whoever holds that the general and the specific contradict one another when their chronology is unknown, since the specific may be abrogated by the general and the general by the specific, everything that had force of law being liable to abrogation, abrogation applying to part or to the whole, and who weighs the general, says: no nisab. As for me, the majority's reading, which suspends the specific over the general in the part where they confront one another, falls under preferring the specific over the general in that part, whereas the general is apparent therein and the specific is a formal text: consider this. This is the reason that led the majority to say the general was built upon the specific, whereas in reality it is not a genuine construction, the contradiction between the two being present, unless the specific is connected to the general and becomes then an exception (authentic hadiths, cited previously).
Abu Hanifa's argument on the nisab by this general text is weak: the hadith was only related to clarify the amount due from the produce (Bidayat al-Mujtahid (1/365)). Ibn al-Qayyim said: one must act upon both hadiths, and it is not permitted to oppose one with the other, nor to abrogate one altogether; for obedience to the Messenger is an obligation in each of them, and they contradict one another in no way, praise be to Allah. His saying "for what the sky waters, the tithe" aims at distinguishing what bears the full tithe from what bears half of it: the two types are mentioned separately as to the amount due.
As for the amount of the nisab, he was silent about it in this hadith and stated it explicitly in the other; how could it be permitted to turn away from the explicit, firm, unambiguous text, which tolerates in no way the interpretation one might impose on it, for the general text whose utmost is that a generality one did not intend to specify be attached to it, contrary to the rule that the rest of general statements are specified by the specific texts that explain them? (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in (3/229, 230); see Ibn Abidin (2/49), al-Mughni (3/472)).
The mentioned nisab, the "five wasq", concerns what is measured by volume among agricultural produce. As for what is not measured by volume, like cotton and saffron, they differed on estimating its nisab. Abu Yusuf said: value is considered: the value of the output of cotton or other must equal the value of five wasq of the cheapest of the volume-measured grains, like barley for instance. He said this because the origin is consideration of the wasq, the text having come with it; if it can be considered in form and meaning, it is considered; otherwise its meaning is required: the value of what is measured by the wasq; and considering the cheapest aims to favor the poor. On this basis, the zakat of cotton becomes due when the value of its output equals the value of fifty measures of barley, barley being today the cheapest grain.
Muhammad said: five times the highest unit by which that thing is measured, for estimation by the wasq, among volume measures, occurred only because the wasq is the maximum by which one can measure in that domain. On this basis, if cotton is measured today in qintars, its nisab is five qintars, and so on.
The Hanbalis said: what is not measured by volume is measured by weight; that is why the nisab of saffron, cotton and what is attached to them among weighed goods was estimated at one thousand six hundred Iraqi ratl, that is 647 kilograms (see Fiqh al-Zakat (1/383)); for not being measurable by volume, its weight stands in place of its measure (al-Mughni (3/474), al-Mubdi' (2/341)).
(Conclusion of the previous point:) he may pay what is due from hulled or unhulled grain. As for the husk that does not preserve the grain, like the husk of fava beans, chickpeas and the upper lentil, zakat is calculated on it with an estimate of dryness, that is, presuming the grain dry (al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi (1/447, 450), Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil (2/168), Minh al-Jalil (2/28)).
If the owner of the crop, when zakat becomes due on it, is the owner of the land, the matter is clear: zakat is owed by him. If he differs from him, this takes several forms.
Borrowed or rented land: the jurists differed on the case of one who rents land or borrows it: is zakat owed by him or by the owner of the land? And does the ruling differ according to whether he is a tenant or a borrower? Abu Hanifa held that the tithe is owed by the lessor (the owner), on the basis of a principle with him: the tithe is a right of the growing land, not of the crop, and the land here is the owner's; and because the tithe is part of the land's burdens, which makes it like the kharaj; and because the land is made to grow by farming as it is by renting: the rent is thus sought like the fruit, and the growth has a meaning for him while he enjoys the blessing of ownership: it is thus more fitting that the tithe be due from him.
But if he borrows it and cultivates it, the tithe is owed by the borrower if he is a Muslim; if he is a dhimmi, it is owed by the owner of the land; for the borrower stands in the owner's place in making it grow, so he stands in his place for the tithe, unlike the lessor, who received compensation for the benefits of his land (Fath al-Qadir (2/8), Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/55), Majma' al-Damanat (55)).
The majority of jurists, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, along with the two companions among the Hanafis, held that the tithe is owed by the borrower and the tenant; for the tithe is a right of the crop, not of the land, and the owner obtained neither grain nor fruit: how would he pay the zakat of a crop he does not own, which belongs to another? Allah said:
"and give its due on the day of its harvest"
Surat al-An'am, 141
thus commanding the holders of the crop to pay the zakat; and because it is a tithe that became due on the crop on its account, it is owed by the holder of the crop; and because it is a right spent on the categories named in the charities, the one addressed is the owner, to the exclusion of others, as with the zakat of wealth; and because he is a free Muslim from whom the nisab of a crop whose kind is zakatable has emerged: the tithe must therefore be owed by him, as if the land were his property (Fath al-Qadir (2/8), Ibn Abidin (2/55), Majma' al-Damanat (55), al-Ishraf (1/174), al-Ifsah (1/325), al-Dasuqi (1/447), al-Majmu' (7/62), al-Mughni (3/516), Kashshaf al-Qina' (2/251)).
Ibn Rushd said: the cause of their disagreement is whether the tithe is a right of the land, of the crop, or of both combined; no one said it is a right of both combined, whereas in reality it is a right of both. Since they held it a right of one of the two things, they differed over which is more worthy to be its locus, the point of agreement being that the crop and the land belong to one owner. The majority said: it is a right of that on which zakat becomes due, the grain. Abu Hanifa said: it is a right of what is the origin of the obligation, the land (Bidayat al-Mujtahid (1/342)).
The jurists differed over the zakat of fruit watered under an irrigation partnership, or the crop of sharecropping: is it owed by the worker, by the owner of the tree, or by both, taken from the total of the fruit once the nisab is reached? And is it valid to stipulate it upon one of the two?
The Hanafis (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the view given in fatwa among them, contrary to Abu Hanifa), the Malikis, the Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in one narration held that in the irrigation partnership and sharecropping, zakat is owed by the owner and the worker according to their shares; for the tithe becomes due on the output, and the output is between the two: the tithe is therefore owed by both; it is taken first, then they divide the rest, with details specific to each madhhab.
The Malikis said: the zakat of the watered orchard must be taken from the total of the fruit if the nisab is reached, which is five wasq, or if the owner of the orchard has other orchards that, added to it, reach the nisab; then the two divide the rest, even if the worker is someone on whom zakat is not due, like the dhimmi. Zakat lapses if the owner of the orchard is exempt from zakat, being an unbeliever, while the worker is liable to zakat; for the latter is a hired hand. If the owner is not liable to zakat, or if the fruit or crop does not reach the nisab, even with his other wealth added, zakat is not due on him nor on the worker's share, even if it constitutes a nisab and even if he is liable to zakat; for he is a hired hand.
There is no harm, according to the well-known view, in stipulating zakat upon one of the two against the other, by taking it from the share of one; for it reverts to a known share, the one for which he watered; if they stipulate nothing, zakat is taken first, then they divide the rest. It has been said: stipulating it upon one of the two is not valid. It has been said: it is permitted upon the worker alone. It has been said: upon the owner of the orchard alone (al-Sharh al-Kabir (5/323), al-Dhakhira (6/115), Mawahib al-Jalil (7/365, 366), al-Taj wa-l-Iklil (4/448, 449), Tathbir al-Mukhtasar (4/543), Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil (6/232), Minh al-Jalil (7/401, 402)).
The Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis in the madhhab held that it is due from each of the two in his share if it reaches the nisab; if the nisab is only reached by combining their shares, it is not due, for commixture has no effect, according to one of the two views with them, except in livestock. If the share of one reaches the nisab without the other, zakat is owed by the one whose share reaches the nisab, paid after the division; unless the one whose share does not reach the nisab has elsewhere what completes it: zakat then becomes due from both. Likewise if one of them has, in his share, fruit of the same kind which, combined with his own, reaches the nisab: zakat is owed by him in his share.
Ibn Qudama said: if one of the two partners is exempt from zakat, like the mukatab or the dhimmi, the zakat of his share, if it reaches the nisab, is owed by the other; Malik and al-Shafi'i said all of this. Al-Layth said: if his partner is a Christian, he informs him that zakat is due on the orchard, then shares with him the rest after the zakat. Our argument: the Christian owes no zakat, so he takes nothing from his share, as if he had it alone. Abu Dawud related in his Sunan, from Aisha:
"The Prophet used to send Abdallah ibn Rawaha to estimate the date palms when they ripened, before any was eaten, then he gave the Jews the choice: take the fruit according to that estimate, or surrender it for that estimate, so that zakat be counted before the fruits were eaten and distributed."Weak chain: narrated by Abu Dawud (3413)
Jabir said:
"Ibn Rawaha estimated it at forty thousand wasq; and when he gave them the choice, the Jews took the fruit, with twenty thousand wasq charged against them."Sound chain: narrated by Abu Dawud (3415)
(al-Mughni (5/273), al-Bayan (7/269)).
Abu Hanifa held that in sharecropping the tithe is owed by the owner of the land, for sharecropping is invalid in his view: the output reverts to him either in fact or by estimation. If the seed came from him, all the output reverts to him, and the sharecropper receives a wage equal to his work; if it came from the cultivator, the output reverts to the latter, and the owner of the land receives a wage equal to his land, which stands in place of the output; the tithe of his share is then taken from the output itself, and the tithe of the sharecropper's share rests on the owner of the land's liability as a debt. The benefit of this distinction: zakat lapses by destruction if tied to the substance, and does not lapse if tied to the liability. According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the tithe is owed by both according to their shares, for sharecropping is valid with them and the tithe becomes due on the output, which is between the two. All of this concerns the tithe; as for the kharaj, it is owed by the owner of the land by consensus (al-Mabsut (23, 33), al-Bahr al-Ra'iq (2/255), Ibn Abidin (2/335)).
The jurists agree that the tithe is only due on what is watered by its roots: what is planted in land whose water is near the surface, where the roots of the tree reach and dispense with irrigation; likewise what has roots reaching a river or a spring; likewise what drinks from water flowing down from a mountain. Half the tithe is due on what is watered with effort: whether by camels assigned to drawing water (nawadhir), by buckets (dawali), by wheels driven by oxen (sawani), by wheels (dawalib), or by the waterwheel (na'ura) turned by the water itself, or otherwise; likewise if he digs a channel from the river to his land and the water, once arrived, must be raised by means of buckets or a device. The criterion is that raising the water to the land requires a device or labor; and none of this is disputed among the Muslim scholars (al-Majmu' (7/23), al-Mughni (3/475), al-Bada'i' (2/538), al-Fawa'ih al-Dawani (1/327)).
The origin of this is the Prophet's saying:
"For what the sky and the springs water, or which is 'athari, the tithe; and for what is watered by drawing, half the tithe."Narrated by al-Bukhari
Abu Ubayd said: the "athari" is what the sky waters, which the common people call "al-'adiya". Al-Qadi said: it is water collected in a pond into which rainwater pours through channels dug for it; when it gathers, one waters from it; the word derives from "al-'athur", the channel in which water flows, over which those passing by stumble. In a narration of Muslim: "and for what is watered by means of the saniya, half the tithe"; the sawani are the nawadhir, camels by which water is drawn to water the land.
Mu'adh said:
"The Messenger of Allah sent me to Yemen and ordered me to take the tithe on what the sky waters and on what is watered naturally (ba'l), and half the tithe on what is watered by means of buckets (dawali)."Authentic hadith: narrated by al-Nasa'i (2490) and Ibn Majah (1818)
Abu Ubayd said: the "ba'l" is what drinks through its roots, without irrigation. Ibn Qudama said: in general, everything watered with expense and effort, by means of a rope and bucket (dalya), a drawing device (saniya), a wheel (dawlab), a waterwheel (na'ura) or otherwise, bears half the tithe; and what is watered without effort bears the full tithe, according to the report we have related; and because expense has an effect in reducing zakat in general, as the tamed animal (ma'lufa) proves: it has all the more reason to lighten the zakat; and because zakat is only due on growing wealth, and expense contributes to explaining the growth, it thus contributes to reducing what is due.
Digging rivers and channels does not reduce the zakat, for the effort there is small, falling within reviving the land and not being repeated every year; likewise the need for a water carrier who waters it and conducts the water around it has no effect, for that is necessary for every irrigation at a cost: it is only an addition to the effort, on the same footing as plowing and improving the land (al-Mughni (3/476)).
If part of the year sees irrigation at a cost and another part without cost, this admits of several cases. First case: the crop is watered half the year at a cost and the other half without: it bears three quarters of the tithe; this is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i and the proponents of reasoned opinion (ahl al-ra'y). Ibn Qudama said: we know of no dispute on this; for each of the two factors, were it present all year, would entail its ruling; if it is present for half the year, it entails half of it (al-Mughni (3/477), Sharh al-Zurqani (2/172), al-Majmu' (7/21)).
The relied-upon view among the Hanafis, however, is that if the two modes of irrigation are equal, half the tithe is due, for the doubt concerns the excess over half, and the excess is not due amid doubt. Another view among them provides for three quarters of the tithe, like the view of the majority.
Second case: irrigation by one of the two exceeds the other. The jurists differed: must the dominant mode alone be considered, or each according to its portion? The Hanafis, the Malikis in the madhhab, the Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in the madhhab said: the dominant mode is considered and the ruling of the lesser falls away, for the ruling belongs to the predominant: taking into account the amount of irrigation, its number of times and the quantity absorbed at each watering would be too complicated; the ruling therefore belongs to the predominant, like the drawing of lots (sum) in livestock.
The Shafi'is according to the sound view of the madhhab, the Malikis in one view and Ibn Hamid among the Hanbalis said: each of the two is considered according to its portion; for were the two equal at half each, one would take by the share; the same applies when one exceeds the other. According to this view, if two thirds of the irrigation came from rainwater and one third from drawing, five sixths of the tithe become due (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' (2/539), al-Bahr al-Ra'iq (2/256), Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/328), Hashiyat al-Adawi (1/598), Sharh al-Zurqani (2/172), al-Fawa'ih al-Dawani (1/327), al-Sharh al-Saghir (1/395), al-Tanbih (1/58), Hilyat al-Ulama (3/65), al-Majmu' (7/24), al-Mughni (3/477), al-Kafi (1/304), al-Mubdi' (2/347), al-Insaf (3/100), Kashshaf al-Qina' (2/210)).
Third case: when the amount of irrigation is unknown. The jurists differed where it is unknown whether the crop was watered more by the sky or more by effort. The Hanbalis in the madhhab said: the full tithe is due as a precaution; for the principle is the obligation of the tithe, which only falls away through the obligation of the expense; as long as the exempting factor is not established, one remains on the principle; and because the principle is the absence of expense in the more frequent case: its existence is not established amid doubt (al-Mughni (3/477), al-Insaf (3/100)). As for the Shafi'is, al-Nawawi said: if the crop is watered both by rainwater and by drawing, the amount of each being unknown, or it is known that one exceeds without knowing which, three quarters of the tithe become due; this is the madhhab, the one the author and the majority of companions ruled on, transmitted from Ibn Surayj and followed without divergence (al-Majmu' (7/25)).
The Hanafis, Malik and al-Shafi'i held that the tithe, or half of it according to the distinction set out, is taken from the whole of the output: neither the seed sown, nor the workers' wages, nor the watchman's wage nor the irrigator's are deducted (a view related from Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla (5/258) and from Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni (4/21)); for the Prophet said: "For what the sky and the springs water, or which is 'athari, the tithe; and for what is watered by drawing, half the tithe" (an authentic hadith, cited previously), obliging the tithe or half of it absolutely, without counting these efforts; and because the Prophet established the right with variation according to the variation of efforts: were the efforts deducted, the variation would disappear (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' (2/539), Fath al-Qadir (2/8, 9)).
Two narrations are related from Ahmad. In one he said: whoever borrowed what he spent on his crop and borrowed what he spent on his family deducts what he spent on his crop, not what he spent on his family; for that is part of the crop's expenses; this is the view of Ibn Abbas. In the second narration, every debt prevents zakat; this is the view of Ibn Umar. Ahmad said: whoever borrowed what he spent on his crop and borrowed what he spent on his family deducts what he spent on his crop, not what he spent on his family, for it is an expense of the crop; this is what Ibn Abbas said.
Abdallah ibn Umar said: "The two debts are deducted together, then he pays from what remains", that is, he deducts what he borrowed or spent on his crop and his family, and pays zakat on the rest. It is related from Ahmad that every debt prevents zakat on apparent wealth. Ibn Qudama said: according to this narration, every debt is deducted, then the tithe is paid on what remains if it reaches the nisab; if it does not reach the nisab, there is no tithe; for this obligation is a zakat, prevented by the debt like the zakat of hidden wealth; and it is a debt preventing the obligation of the tithe like the kharaj. According to the first narration, the difference is that what belongs to the crop's expenses must have its return spent elsewhere, as if it had not been obtained (al-Mughni (3/516, 4/21)).
The kharaj of the land is like the crop's expenses among the Hanbalis: it is taken from the yield before counting the zakat. As for the Malikis, Ibn al-Arabi addressed this issue in his commentary on al-Tirmidhi and said: our scholars differed: is the expense deducted from the wealth being zakated, zakat then becoming due on the net, or are the expense of the wealth and its service part of the owner's share, zakat being taken from the gross, that is, from the total of the yield? He held it correct that it is deducted from the yield: the correct position is that it is deducted, and the tithe is taken on the remainder; that is why the Prophet said:
"Leave the third or the quarter."Narrated by Abu Dawud (1605) and al-Tirmidhi (643)
the third or the quarter roughly matching the amount of the expense: if one deducts what is eaten as fresh dates and what is spent, the remainder is three quarters or two thirds. He said: we tried it and found it so in most cases: deducting what is eaten as fresh dates and counting the expense, the remainder is three quarters or two thirds, and Allah knows best (Sharh al-Tirmidhi (3/143)).
The full hadith, related by Sahl ibn Abi Hathma, reads: "When you estimate the fruit, take and leave the third; if you do not leave the third, leave the quarter." Al-Tirmidhi said: in this chapter Aisha, 'Attab ibn Asid and Ibn Abbas also relate; and the practice upon the hadith of Sahl ibn Abi Hathma is held by most of the people of knowledge concerning the estimation (kharas), and Ahmad and Ishaq said the same; the estimation (kharas) is this: when the zakatable fruits, fresh dates and grapes, ripen, the authority sends an estimator who estimates on their behalf: the one who examines says: such and such will come out of these raisins, and such and such out of these dates, fixes for them the amount of the tithe, then leaves them free to dispose of the fruits as they wish; when the fruits ripen, the tithe is taken from them. Some scholars explained it in this way, and Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad and Ishaq say likewise. Al-Albani judged this hadith weak in "Da'if Abi Dawud" (349).