Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > General rules of zakat > Conditions of obligation: growth, surplus and nisab
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
This general section of the zakat chapter covers the conditions tied to the nature of the wealth subject to zakat: growth (numuw) and its legal status in the four schools, the inclusion of gold and silver for their capacity for growth, surplus over essential needs, wealth acquired during the year (mustafad), tricks to evade zakat, the wisdom behind the prescribed thresholds, the time at which the presence of the nisab is considered, and the effect of debt. The schools' positions are cited with their classical references (original volumes and pages), and the takhrij of the hadiths (al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah) is preserved as transmitted.
Linguistic definition. Growth (nama) means, in the language, increase: the word is written with lengthening, and shortening it with a hamza is an error. One says: wealth has grown (nama) and increased (yanmi) in growth (nama), it thrives (yanmu) in thriving (numuww), "may Allah make it thrive", as reported in "Al-Mughrib".
Technical definition. The jurists distinguish two types of growth: real growth, which is increase through reproduction, multiplication and commerce; and estimated growth (taqdiri), which is the capacity to increase because the wealth lies in the hand of the owner or in the hand of his representative (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/222; Hashiyat Radd al-Mukhtar, 2/263). The wealth from which zakat is taken is thus wealth that grows in fact or that is capable of growth. In the language of the age, growth means that the wealth is of such a nature as to yield its owner profit and benefit, that is, income, yield or revenue, or that it is itself an increase, a surplus and a new product: the jurists of Islam established this wisdom with clarity and precision.
The evidence for growth. The jurists derived the condition of growth, or the attribution of zakat to growth, from the sunna of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), both verbal and practical, supported by the practice of his successors and companions. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not make zakat due on wealth acquired for personal use, in accordance with the authentic hadith:
The Muslim owes no charity (zakat) on his slave or his horse.Reported by al-Bukhari (1394) and Muslim (286)
Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "This hadith is a foundational text establishing that purchased goods (qinya) are not subject to zakat" (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 7/55). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made zakat obligatory only on growing, productive wealth that yields to its owner. Since zakat was legislated for solidarity, and solidarity only concerns wealth possessing growth: that which grows by itself, like livestock and crops, and that which grows through the change of its state and the transactions performed upon it, like the currencies, gold and silver.
For gold and silver, growth in fact is not required, because these two metals have growth in their very nature: zakat is due on them whether one intends trade, no intention at all, or intends spending. It is not due on what does not admit this, like dwellings, furniture and possessions for personal use, according to the preceding hadith. The absence of growth is likewise another cause of zakat not being due on lost or uncontrollable wealth (amwal al-dimar), for there is no growth without the capacity to dispose of wealth, and lost wealth lies beyond all capacity.
After a survey of the books of the jurists of all the legal schools, none of them justified the obligation of zakat by anything other than growth. Growth means that the wealth is growing, that is, capable of growth in reality or by estimation. Wealth growing in reality falls into three kinds: breeding grazing livestock, crops, and trade. Wealth capable of growth is the dirhams and dinars (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/222; Hashiyat Radd al-Mukhtar, 2/263; Hujjat Allah al-Baligha, 2/61).
The status of growth: condition, cause or 'illa? The scholars differed: is growth an 'illa of the obligation of zakat, a condition of that obligation, a cause, or can zakat not be attached to any 'illa at all? The majority of scholars, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, take growth into account in zakatable wealth, and Ibn Abd al-Barr and Kamal ibn al-Humam report consensus on this. Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The agreed principle in zakat is that it is only due on growing wealth" (al-Istidhkar, 3/151). Al-Zarqani reports the same statement in his commentary on the Muwatta: "The agreed principle in zakat is that it falls on growing wealth, or that growth is sought from it through disposition" (Sharh al-Zarqani 'ala al-Muwatta, 2/141).
Kamal ibn al-Humam (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly affirms consensus on estimated growth: "Estimated growth is well established, and it is what counts, by consensus, the obligation not depending on real growth" (Fath al-Qadir, 2/215). The scholars then differ: is growth a condition of obligation, a cause or an 'illa? Some state it as a condition; others take it into account by suspending the entry of some categories into zakat upon its existence and their exit upon its absence, without stating it to be the 'illa; and others place it among the causes of the obligation of zakat.
First view: growth is a condition of obligation (the Hanafi view). The Hanafis make growth one of the conditions of the obligation of zakat, which is therefore only due on growing wealth. The wisdom of this condition, according to Ibn al-Humam (may Allah have mercy on him) (Fath al-Qadir, 2/155), is that the purpose of legislating zakat, alongside the original purpose of trial, is to let the poor share in the wealth of the payer in a way that does not make the payer poor himself, by giving from his surplus a little out of much; making zakat due on wealth with no growth whatsoever would lead to the opposite through repeated years, especially with the need to spend.
They say: growth is realized in grazing livestock through milk and offspring, in wealth prepared for trade, in agricultural land subject to the tithe, and in the rest of zakatable wealth; growth in fact is not required, and the capacity for growth suffices, the wealth being in the hand of the owner or the hand of his representative. Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) explains: the meaning of zakat, which is growth, is only obtained from growing wealth; we do not mean by it real growth, which does not count, but the wealth being prepared for growth through trade or through grazing, that is, pasturing the animal in lawful herbage. Grazing is the cause of milk, offspring and fattening, and trade the cause of profit: the cause is then placed in the position of the caused and the ruling attaches to it, like travel with hardship, marriage with conjugal relations, and sleep with major ritual impurity (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/11).
By this condition, clothes not intended for trade exit the scope of zakat, whether their owner needs them or not, as do household furniture, stored goods and real estate (dwelling houses), books for their owners or others, and the tools of craftsmen. Also excluded are livestock not prepared for milk and offspring, but prepared for plowing, riding or meat (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/11). Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him), after listing the conditions of the obligation of zakat, adds that the wealth must be growing, and also that it be surplus over the essential need, for through it are realized richness, the meaning of blessing which is comfort, and willing payment.
Wealth needed for an essential need does not make its owner rich nor constitute a blessing, since comfort is not obtained by the vital necessity, which belongs to the requirements of the body's survival: its gratitude is that of the blessing of the body, and payment is not made willingly. Yet the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is:
Pay the zakat of your wealth willingly.Hadith judged weak: reported by al-Tabarani in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir (7535)
Zakat is therefore not realized on necessary wealth: the reality of need being an inward matter that cannot be inquired into, the surplus over need is unknown, and the proof of need is replaced by the indicator that stands in for it, preparation for grazing and trade. This is the view of most scholars (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/11).
Malik's objection. Malik said: this is not a condition of the obligation of zakat, which is due on all wealth, growing and surplus over essential needs or not. He cited ceremonial and professional garments, beasts of burden and riding animals, service slaves, the dwelling, ships, the family's clothing and food, and items of adornment such as vessels, pearls, mattresses and equipment without intention of trade. He argued from the general texts of zakat, without distinction between kinds of wealth, as in the following verses:
"Take from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them to grow by it"
Surah At-Tawbah, 103
"And in their wealth there is a recognized right (24) for the seeker and the deprived (25)"
Surah Al-Ma'arij, 24-25
"And give the zakat"
Surah Al-Baqarah, 43
Malik also argued that zakat was prescribed in gratitude for the blessing of wealth, and that the meaning of blessing is more complete and closer in these kinds of wealth since it touches survival itself: they therefore call more strongly to gratitude. The Hanafis reply that the meaning of growth and of surplus over the essential need is necessary for the obligation, per the evidences cited, and it is not realized in these kinds of wealth: the general texts therefore refer to growing wealth surplus over essential needs.
As for the argument of blessing, the blessing of these kinds of wealth goes back to the body, since they ward off the vital necessity, which is the need to repel perdition from the body: their gratitude is therefore that of the blessing of the body, namely bodily acts of worship like prayer and fasting. And the word of Allah "And give the zakat" is an argument for the Hanafis, zakat being the expression of growth, which comes from growing wealth in the sense explained: prepared for growth through grazing in the case of livestock and through trade in the case of commercial goods.
Except that, for the currencies of gold and silver, preparation for trade is established by their very nature, for they do not serve direct use in repelling essential needs: no intention is required there, and zakat is due on them whether one intends trade, no intention at all, or intends spending. For merchandise other than the currencies, preparation for trade requires intention, since they also serve direct use, which is their original purpose: they must therefore be designated for trade by intention. Likewise livestock require the intention of grazing, for as useful as they are for milk and offspring, they serve carrying, riding and meat. The intention of trade or grazing is moreover only counted once joined to the act of trade or grazing, mere intention having no weight in rulings (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/11).
Al-Nasafi and al-Zayla'i. Al-Nasafi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The conditions of obligation are intellect, puberty, Islam, freedom, and ownership of an annual nisab free of debt and essential need, growing even if only by estimation; the condition of payment is an intention concurrent with payment, or with setting aside what is due, or giving it all in charity" (Kanz al-Daqa'iq, p. 203). Al-Zayla'i (may Allah have mercy on him) comments: "growing even if only by estimation" means that it is required for the obligation of zakat that the wealth grow in reality, through reproduction, multiplication and commerce, or by estimation, if it can grow because the wealth is in the hand of the owner or the hand of his representative. Since the cause is growing wealth, it must be realized in fact or by estimation; if one cannot grow it, there is no zakat, for the condition is lacking.
Such is the case of lost wealth: the runaway slave, lost property, usurped wealth with no proof against the usurper, wealth fallen into the sea, wealth buried in the desert whose location has been forgotten, wealth unjustly confiscated by the ruler, the deposit whose depositor has forgotten and who is not among his acquaintances, and the denied debt with no proof, later acknowledged after years. If the depositor is among his acquaintances, the zakat of past years is due upon remembering; for wealth buried in a vineyard or land, the masters differ (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/255-256).
Ibn Nujaym and al-Babarti. Ibn Nujaym (may Allah have mercy on him) reports in "Al-Nahr al-Fa'iq" the commentary of the Sharh: "growing", that is, increasing, even by estimation, the wealth being in the hand of the owner or the hand of a representative capable of increase; no zakat on lost wealth, which in language is the absent thing from which nothing is hoped, and in the Law is any wealth whose use is not possible while the principle of ownership subsists, as stated in "Al-Bada'i": the runaway slave, lost property, the denied debt, and usurped wealth with no proof. If proof exists, the wealth is not lost, except in the usurpation of grazing livestock, where there is no zakat even if the usurper acknowledges ("Al-Khaniya") (al-Nahr al-Fa'iq, 1/416).
In "Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" (2/218), Ibn Nujaym explains that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) delimited the cause by the condition, and that the compiler of the Kanz made it a condition of obligation, whereas the Hanafis say its cause is ownership of prepared wealth, on the lookout for growth and increase, surplus over need, as in "Al-Muhit" and elsewhere. Cause and condition share that existence is attributed to each without causal effect, which excludes the 'illa; they are distinguished in that the obligation is attributed to the cause as well, not to the condition, as is known in legal theory. Al-Babarti (may Allah have mercy on him) for his part states: growth is without doubt a condition of the obligation of zakat (al-'Inaya, 3/84, 216).
Al-Mawardi's position. Close to the Hanafi view is what may be understood from the words of al-Mawardi the Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him): "Zakat is only due on growing wealth like livestock and crops, and falls away on what does not grow, like tools and real estate" (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/189). He also said: "Zakat is due on growing wealth like livestock, crops and trade goods, not on what does not grow, like houses and real estate; usurped wealth lacking growth must therefore be free of zakat" (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/130). And again: "Since zakat is due on growing wealth, what has been stored of crops and fruits, of interrupted growth and exposed to exhaustion and perishing, is not subject to zakat, like furniture and cloth" (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/255).
Second view: growth is a cause, not a condition nor an 'illa (the view of some Hanafis). Al-Haskafi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in "Al-Durr al-Mukhtar": "Its conditions of obligation are intellect, puberty, Islam and freedom, and knowledge even by presumption; its cause is ownership of an annual nisab", complete, free of debt and essential need, "growing even if only by estimation", through the capacity for growth even via a representative. He then specifies: "no zakat on the property of the mukatab, nor on what was taken by confiscation", that is, unjustly, "nor on what he recovers after years", for absence of growth (al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 2/266).
Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) sets out in his hashiya the question of the difference between cause, condition and 'illa: the compiler of the Kanz made it a condition, the author of the Durr objected that it is a cause, and the author of the Bahr replied that he gave the cause the name of condition, the two sharing that existence is attributed to each without causal effect, which excludes the 'illa, the cause being distinguished in that the obligation is attributed to it as well. Ibn Abidin says: no need for all that; "Al-Bada'i" counts among the conditions ownership in general, by hand or by person, and says the cause is the wealth itself, for zakat was prescribed in gratitude for the blessing of wealth, hence the attribution: one says "zakat of the wealth", this attribution expressing causation, like "the prayer of noon", "the fast of the month" and "the pilgrimage of the House". Where the Kanz makes the nisab a condition, the attribution is that of the masdar to its object; where the compiler makes it a cause, the attribution is that of the attribute to the described, that is, the owned nisab (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/259). Ibn Abidin further specifies that "for absence of growth" is the 'illa of the statement "nor on lost wealth": lost wealth is incapable of increase because it is not in the hand of the owner or a representative (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/266).
It is stated in "Durrar al-Hukkam 'ala Ghurar al-Ahkam": "Its conditions of obligation are intellect and puberty", for without them there is no legal charge; "Islam", because it is a condition of validity for all acts of worship; "freedom", so that transfer of ownership is realized, the slave belonging only to his master who owns him. "Its cause is complete ownership", not by hand alone as in the property of the mukatab, which in reality belongs to the master; the books of legal theory establish that the cause of obligation is this ownership, even if the Kanz makes it a condition. "Of a nisab": the nisab counts because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) delimited the cause by it. "Free of debt": a demandable debt on the side of acts of worship, so that the debt of vow and expiation blocks without the debt of zakat blocking while the nisab remains, nor after consumption.
For the imam collected the apparent wealth and his delegates collected the hidden wealth, until the time of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him); the latter delegated the hidden wealth to their owners in order to cut off the greed of wrongdoers, which was an authorization granted to the owners, with no difference between direct debt and debt by guarantee, as reported by al-Zayla'i and others. Yet the author of the Sharh classified zakat with vow and expiation, contrary to "Al-Hidaya" and others: it seems to be an oversight of the first copyist. "Free of essential need", like dwelling houses and the like. "Growing even if only by estimation": growth is real, through reproduction, multiplication and commerce, or estimated, through the capacity for growth because the wealth is in the hand of the owner or the hand of a representative; if it is lost, zakat is not due (Durrar al-Hukkam, 2/303, 305).
Al-Shurunbulali reports the criticism made by the author of the Bahr against the Kanz, in these terms: the compiler made complete ownership a condition of obligation, whereas, according to the Hanafis, the cause of zakat is ownership of wealth on the lookout for growth and increase, surplus over need, as in "Al-Muhit" and elsewhere, cause and condition sharing that existence is attributed to each without causal effect, which excludes the 'illa, the cause being distinguished in that the obligation is attributed to it as well, as is known in legal theory (see Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/259; Durrar al-Hukkam, 2/303, 305).
Third view: growth as an 'illa. Some Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali scholars speak of growth as an 'illa for certain categories of zakat, without declaring it an 'illa for all of them, though this is the purport of their words. Ibn Baziyya the Tunisian Maliki, discussing the zakat of the expected debt (marjuw), said: "An expected debt from a due debt comes from a sale or a loan. If it comes from a sale, two views: the famous one is that it is counted, for it is part of growth, which is the 'illa of the obligation of zakat at its specified place" (Rawdat al-Mustibin, 1/453).
Ubayd Allah ibn Mas'ud al-Bukhari the Hanafi, discussing the zakat of struck gold (coined money), said: "Our statement 'monetary character is the 'illa of zakat on struck gold' means that gold and silver have monetary character in their nature, proof that they are not devoted to essential needs but are by nature commercial wealth. Monetary character is thus a component of the wealth's growing character, an effective 'illa inasmuch as the Lawgiver considered its kind in the ruling of obligation; the 'illa in reality is growth, not monetary character" (Sharh al-Talwih, 2/142). Al-Khatib al-Shirbini the Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) likewise said: "As for livestock, it is because the 'illa of zakat in it is growth" (Mughni al-Muhtaj, 2/124). Abu Bakr al-Dimyati the Shafi'i, author of "I'anat al-Talibin", said regarding the zakat of the debt of livestock and crops: "The 'illa of zakat in livestock is the growth of the herd in his ownership, which does not exist here; in grazing livestock, grazing and growth; neither of the two in what weighs on liability, unlike the currencies, whose 'illa is monetary character, realized absolutely, in determined coin as in the debt" (I'anat al-Talibin, 2/200).
The Maliki statements on growth. Qadi Abu Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "This is what I know of no disagreement: merchandise to which trade is not intended is not subject to zakat. The principle is that zakat is only due on growing wealth: the currencies, crops and livestock. These objects have lost that growth, and their very bodies carry no zakat: they are therefore not subject to it" (Sharh al-Risala, 1/410).
He also said: "What counts for the obligation of zakat is growth to the exclusion of every other factor, zakat being due by its existence and falling away by its absence. Wealth is of two kinds: that whose zakat is due on the body itself, like gold and silver, and that whose zakat is not due on the body, like merchandise. We agree that what does not owe zakat on its body owes it if increase and the seeking of surplus are intended from it, seeking growth through it. It follows that what owes zakat on its body may see that zakat fall if its use is turned away from seeking growth in a lawful manner" (Sharh al-Risala, 1/412; al-Ishraf, 2/162-163). He adds that this reasoning may belong to inverse analogy (qiyas al-'aks) or be an original argument.
Al-Baji (may Allah have mercy on him) makes the incapacity to grow wealth an obstacle to zakat like usurpation. Explaining the meaning of zakat, he said: "The payment of this right is only due on wealth exposed to growth; that is why it is not due on what was acquired without being exposed to increase, and why zakat falls on currencies whose owner is prevented from growing them by usurpation. Zakat being specific to growing wealth, it is said: 'give from your growth and pay the zakat of your wealth', in the sense that he pays from his growth" (al-Muntaqa, 2/90). Al-Khirshi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions that the obstacle to the zakat of the loan is its lack of growth: the famous view is that a non-expected cash debt is not zakated, it is like non-existent; likewise, on the famous view, the loan, for lack of growth, falling outside the regime of trade. The borrower zakats for a single year after recovery, unless he delayed recovery to flee zakat, as passed in the chapter on the zakat of debt; and al-Baji said there is no disagreement that the loan bears no zakat, this being an interpretation on his part.
Qadi Iyad interpreted it as the valuation of the loan, by virtue of the generality of the text, for the busy merchant whose capital almost never comes together in one body, like the draper and cloth merchant and the one who ships goods to lands: he sets himself one month each year to value his trade goods and zakat that, along with the currencies he holds and the debts he hopes will be paid (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/197).
Abu al-Walid Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him), on the zakat of buried wealth and the deposit, reports that Malik, in the narration of Ali ibn Ziyad ("Al-Majmu'a"), assimilated buried wealth to found property (luqata) and made zakat due on neither except for a single year, the soundest view upon examination. For zakat is only due on wealth present in the owner's hand, even if he neither moves it nor seeks growth from it, on account of his capacity to do so; here he is incapable of moving it and growing it in both cases, so zakat must fall away. Ibn Nafi' reported from Malik, in the same line, that the deposit does not oblige its holder to zakat until he recovers it, then for a single year: the incapacity for growth only ceasing then, unless the depositor is absent, which opens another view. This narration proves that the incapacity to grow wealth is a valid 'illa for zakat to fall away from it (al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil, 2/373).
Ibn Rushd the grandson (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the majority hold that there is no zakat on horses; Abu Hanifa held that they are zakatable if they are grazing livestock sought for breeding, that is, males and females together. The cause of their difference is the contradiction of analogical reasoning with the text, and what is thought to be a contradiction between texts. The text implying no zakat is the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The Muslim owes no charity on his slave or his horse" (al-Bukhari 1394; Muslim 286). The reasoning that counters this generality is that grazing horses are animals sought for growth and breeding, resembling camels and cattle (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/183).
Shaykh al-Zarqani (may Allah have mercy on him), on the zakat of the hoarder's merchandise, reports from Ibn Bashir this clarification: even if hoarded goods pass through years, only one zakat is due on them, for zakat, as understood from the Law, attaches to growth or to the load ('ir), not to the merchandise. If the goods pass through years and are then sold, growth has been realized only once: only one zakat is due, and it is not permitted to pay it voluntarily before the sale; if one does so, it suffices according to two views, the famous one being non-validity, zakat not yet being due. Likewise, among the Malikis, there are two views on paying the zakat of a debt before its recovery, the famous one being prohibition (Sharh al-Zarqani 'ala Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/278).
The fatwa of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. It is stated in the Muwatta that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered the zakat of past years, then went back and ordered that of a single year. Imam Khalil explains the justification of this reversal: there is a difference, in the divergent case, between this wealth and the debt; the debt concerns wealth with growth, like trade goods, or because the debtor left the growth in that wealth by choice (al-Tawdih, 2/247). Al-Lakhmi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the wealth of minors and the insane is zakated; they are in this like the sane adult, according to Malik's view. Their livestock and crops are therefore zakated, because growth is present in them (al-Tabssira, 2/880).
Al-Nafrawi the Maliki (may Allah have mercy on him) specifies that "livestock" (mawashi), in the jurists' usage, refers only to camels, cattle and sheep, the only ones subject to zakat: not horses, mules or donkeys. Zakat was prescribed on them to the exclusion of the other animals for the completeness of growth found in them: milk, wool, offspring and other kinds of benefit, unlike the other species of animals (al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/341).
Including the two currencies for their capacity for growth. Ibn Shas (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "There is no zakat on any of the treasures of wealth except the two currencies, gold and silver, and this hangs on their readiness for growth. If one makes them into jewelry, their essence requires the obligation of zakat and their form requires its falling away, for they have become, through the crafting, like merchandise" ('Iqd al-Jawahir, 1/224). Al-Tanukhi (may Allah have mercy on him) sets out some of the rules and secrets of zakat: the Law established equity between the holders of wealth and the poor by attaching it only to growing wealth. This is why it tied it to three types: pure growth, which is the plant and the mineral; that which grows by its nature, which is livestock; and that which is prepared for growth, which is the currency, gold and silver.
It excluded zakat from merchandise, unless trade is intended with them, in which case they return to the regime of the currencies, the growth of this kind depending on the owner's will. What is growth in itself has no need of the year (hawl): zakat is due as soon as it comes about. What grows by nature or by being put in motion only reaches the completeness of the intended growth after the hawl has passed: the Law therefore prescribed the years for the currencies and livestock, and the zakat of the mineral and the plant upon its realization (al-Tanbih 'ala mabadi' al-tawjih, 2/776).
The statements of the Shafi'is. No Shafi'i jurist was found stating explicitly that growth is a condition of the obligation of zakat. They say that zakat is due on wealth because it grows, and when they deny it of something, they say: zakat is not due on such a thing, because it does not grow or is not prepared for growth. Al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him): "Zakat is only due on growing wealth like livestock and crops, and falls away on what does not grow, like tools and real estate" (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/189). He also said: "Zakat is due on growing wealth like livestock, crops and trade goods, not on what does not grow, like houses and real estate" (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/130). And again: "Since zakat is due on growing wealth, what has been stored of crops and fruits, of interrupted growth and exposed to exhaustion and perishing, is not subject to zakat, like furniture and cloth" (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/255).
Al-Shirazi (may Allah have mercy on him) sets out this chapter: "Zakat is only due on grazing livestock, camels, cattle and sheep, according to what is reported: Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote the document of charity containing: 'The charity of sheep is due on their grazing flocks; when they number forty, the charity is due'" (reported by al-Bukhari in his Sahih, chapter on the zakat of sheep, 2/527, hadith 1386). Bahz ibn Hakim reported from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
On grazing camels, for every forty there is a two-year-old she-camel that has already borne.Hadith judged good (hasan): reported by Abu Dawud (1575)
Al-Shirazi adds: working animals and fed animals are not acquired for growth, so zakat is not due on them, like body clothes and household furniture. If one owns grazing animals and feeds them, one examines: if the amount allows the animal to survive on it, it has no effect, its existence equaling its absence; if the amount does not allow it, zakat falls away, the completeness of growth through grazing not being realized (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/142). As for usurped and lost wealth: zakat does not oblige before its return, irrespective of growth. In the old book: no zakat, for the wealth has left his hand and his disposal, like the wealth held by the mukatab. In the new: zakat is due, for it is wealth that belongs to him, he can claim it and it will be compelled to be returned to him, like wealth held by his agent.
If the wealth returns with growth, Abu al-'Abbas said its zakat is due without doubt, zakat having fallen away, in one of the two views, only for lack of growth, which is now realized. The correct view is that there are two views, zakat not having fallen for lack of growth, since the males of livestock have no growth yet owe zakat: it fell for the diminution of ownership through the wealth leaving his hand (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/142). Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: zakat only repeats on growing wealth; what has been stored of crop and fruit is of interrupted growth and exposed to perishing, with no zakat, like furniture; livestock, by contrast, is on the lookout for growth (al-Majmu', 5/455).
Al-Damiri (may Allah have mercy on him), on the zakat of livestock, excludes "horses and slaves", per the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
I have exempted you from the charity of horses and slaves.Authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (1577), al-Tirmidhi (620) and al-Nasa'i (2477)
This exemption joins his word "The Muslim owes no charity on his slave or his horse", both hadiths being authentic and agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim. Horses and slaves are acquired for adornment and use, not for growth, and resemble real estate (al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 3/130). Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: no zakat on a work animal in plowing or otherwise, even if it is so named, according to the report of al-Bayhaqi and others, whose chain al-Bayhaqi authenticated, as Ibn al-Qattan stated. "Nothing is due on working cattle, for they are not acquired for growth but for use, like body clothes and household furniture: it means using them to the extent that, were one to let them graze instead, would make zakat fall away" (Asna al-Matalib, 1/355).
The view of the Hanbalis. The Hanbali scholars took growth into account without stating whether it is a condition, cause or 'illa: they included grazing livestock in zakat for the growth found in it. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The quality of growth is taken into account in zakat" (al-Mughni, 2/239). He also said: the difference between that for which the year counts and that for which it does not is that the first is on the lookout for growth: livestock is on the lookout for milk and offspring, trade goods and currencies for profit.
The year is therefore counted as the likely place of growth, so that zakat is paid from profit, which is easier and gentler. And because zakat was only prescribed for solidarity, the reality of growth was not counted, given the variety of its forms and the impossibility of regulating it, just as the reality of causes is not examined in the ruling. And because zakat repeats on this wealth, a regulator is needed to avoid successive obligations repeated within the same time, which would exhaust the owner's wealth (al-Mughni, 2/257). In "Al-Kafi": no zakat on horses, mules, donkeys or slaves, per the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) "The Muslim owes no charity on his slave or his horse", agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim; their milk is not sought, and they are mostly acquired only for adornment and use, not for growth.
No zakat either on wild beasts for the same reason; zakat is due, on one view, on wild cattle because it enters the name of "cattle", but the first view is better: it does not enter the general name of "cattle", slaughtering it is not permitted, it is acquired neither for growth nor for milk, and it resembles gazelles. As for the hybrid born of wild and domestic stock, the Hanbalis said zakat is due on it by favoring obligation, but better is that it not be due: it is acquired neither for growth nor for milk, resembles the wild beast, and does not enter the general names of "cattle" and "sheep" (al-Kafi, 1/283).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) further said: if the wealth is lawful, like the customary adornment of women in gold and silver, the man's silver ring, the silver fittings of his sword, his sword straps, belt, shield, helmet, boots and silver plume, and these are prepared for trade, for expense or for renting out a house, zakat is due on them: they are prepared for growth like coined money. Prepared for wearing and lending, no zakat, according to what Jabir reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
There is no zakat on jewelry.Reported by Jabir, cited by Ibn Qudama
These items are indeed diverted from growth to a lawful use, like ceremonial clothes. Ibn Abi Musa reported from him that zakat is due on them, based on the generality of the reports (al-Kafi, 1/310).
Crops and fruits are growth in themselves: they are completed by the payment of zakat, which is then taken from them, after which they return to decrease, not growth, and no second zakat is due, for they are not on the lookout for growth. The product extracted from the mineral leaves the earth, like the crop and the fruit; if it is of the kind of the currencies, zakat is due at each year, for the currencies are the values of wealth and the capital of trade, through which the limited partnership (mudaraba) and the company are realized, being created for that: they are thus, by origin and nature, like prepared commercial wealth (al-Mughni, 2/258).
Al-Bahuti and al-Ruhaybani (may Allah have mercy on them): "The fifth condition of the obligation of zakat on currencies, livestock and trade goods is the passage of a complete year over a complete nisab", according to the hadith "No zakat on wealth until a year passes over it", out of regard for the owner and so that growth may be completed and solidarity drawn from it. Since zakat repeats on this wealth, a regulator is needed to avoid successive obligations at close intervals, which would exhaust the wealth. Crops, fruits and the mineral are growth in themselves: zakat is taken from them upon their existence and no second is due, unless the mineral is of the kind of the currencies. The word of Allah:
"And give its due on the day of its harvest"
Surah Al-An'am, 141
excludes counting the year for grains and the like, with a grace of half a day on the term of the year, authenticated in "Tashih al-Furu'" (Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1/394; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 2/20).
The graduation of rates according to Ibn al-Qayyim. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) divides merchandise into two categories: that prepared for trade, zakatable, and that prepared for acquisition and use, diverted from growth, with no zakat. Since growth and profit through trade are among the hardest things and demand the most effort and work, the Law lightened them by a quarter of the tithe. Growth through crops and fruits watered at cost, lower in cost, easier in labor and yielding no return every single year, was set at double, namely half the tithe. The toil of what drinks by itself being less and the burden easier, the Law set it at double again, the full tithe, being content with the zakat of its single year: should one remain for years thereafter without trade, no zakat, growth and increase having ceased, unlike livestock and what would be prepared for trade, exposed to growth.
Treasure (rikaz) being gathered, consolidated wealth, cheaper to obtain than others and requiring only extraction, the Law set it at double the tithe, the fifth. Ibn al-Qayyim concludes: "Look at the proportionality of this perfect Law, whose beauty and completeness astonish the intellects and whose wisdom is testified to by sound nature; no better law has come into the world, and if the intellects of the wise and the nature of the discerning were to gather to propose something better, their proposal would not reach what it brought" (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 2/110-111).
The critique of Ibn Hazm. Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly denied growth as a condition or 'illa of the obligation of zakat and attacked those who affirm it: "Their statement 'zakat is on what grows' is a false, contradictory claim; purchased goods grow in value like trade goods, with no difference. If they say trade goods are devoted to trade and grow in it, we answer: they also lose in it; likewise donkeys grow with no zakat among them, horses grow with no zakat among the Shafi'is and Malikis, working camels grow with no zakat among the Hanafis and Shafi'is, what is captured in kharaj land grows with no zakat among the Hanafis, and the wealth of slaves grows with no zakat among the Malikis."
Abu Muhammad adds: "Their statements and their disorder in this very issue are decisive proof that it does not come from Allah the Most High. One group among them said the zakat of trade goods is paid from their bodies, the view of al-Muzani; another said they are valued, and then they differed: Abu Hanifa said they are valued at the currency most accessible to the poor; al-Shafi'i said at the purchase price; Malik said that whoever sells goods for goods never owes zakat until he sells and obtains even one dirham: only then does he value his goods and zakat them. What business does the dirham have here? That is astonishing; and if he obtained only half a dirham, a grain of silver or a fals, what would he do? Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i say one values and zakats even without obtaining a dirham. Malik said the merchant who sells and buys values and zakats every year, but the hoarder owes nothing, even keeping his goods for years, until he sells: then he zakats for a single year, and that is most astonishing. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i say the two cases are identical: both value and zakat every year." (al-Muhalla, 5/239).
This condition is also mentioned by the Hanafis: that the wealth be surplus over essential needs. Through it are realized richness and the meaning of blessing, which is comfort, and through it payment is made willingly: wealth needed for an essential need does not make its owner rich nor constitute a blessing, comfort not being obtained by the vital necessity, which belongs to the requirements of the body's survival. Its gratitude is therefore that of the blessing of the body, and payment is not made willingly, contradicting the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Pay the zakat of your wealth willingly.Hadith judged authentic: reported by Ahmad in his Musnad (5/262), al-Tabarani in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir (8/115) and Ibn Abi Asim in as-Sunna (2/505, hadith 1061), from Abu Umamah
The reality of need being an inward matter that cannot be inquired into, the surplus over need is unknown: the proof of need is replaced by the indicator that stands in for it, preparation for grazing and trade. This is the view of most scholars (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/402-403). On the basis of this condition, the Hanafis say: no zakat on books of knowledge acquired for their owners or for others, even if worth a nisab; no zakat either on the dwelling house, household furniture, riding animals and the like, for one occupied by an essential need is like one who does not exist.
Ibn Malik, of the Hanafis, defines the essential need precisely: it is what truly wards off perdition from man, like food, dwelling houses, weapons and clothes needed against heat and cold. Or what wards it off by estimation, like debt: the debtor needs to pay it with what he holds of the nisab, to ward off from himself imprisonment, which is perdition; likewise the tools of the craft, household furniture, riding animals and books of knowledge for their people, ignorance being, for them, like perdition. If he holds dirhams reserved for these needs, they are like non-existent, just as water reserved for thirst is like non-existent and makes tayammum lawful (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/222; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/262; Qawa'id al-Fiqh, 1/257).
Ibn Malik deduced from this that whoever holds a nisab of dirhams reserved, by intention, for an essential need owes no zakat after the passing of the year. Ibn Nujaym objected to him in "Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" (2/222), citing "Al-Mi'raj" and "Al-Bada'i": zakat is due on cash however one holds it, for growth or for expense. None of the other schools mentions this condition independently, perhaps because the Law prescribed zakat on determined kinds of wealth, upon the passage of a complete year over a full nisab: once that exists, zakat is due (see also Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Fiqh az-Zakat, p. 170-171).
Acquired wealth (mustafad) is that which enters a person's ownership when he did not previously possess it. Zakat obliges only on wealth complete in nisab after the passing of the year (hawl). Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the majority of jurists require the hawl for the obligation of zakat on gold, silver and grazing livestock, based on its establishment with the four caliphs, its spread among the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and the wide circulation of the practice; such a spread, without disagreement, can only come from a fixed prescription of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is reported from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
There is no zakat on wealth until a year passes over it.Authentic hadith: reported by Ibn Majah (1792)
The jurists of the cities are unanimous on this. In the first generation, the only disagreement comes from Ibn Abbas and Mu'awiya, and the reason is that no established hadith had reached them on this point (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/371). If the holder has no zakatable wealth reaching the nisab, acquired wealth is not zakatable and its hawl does not conclude; if the nisab is completed, the hawl runs from the day of completion and zakat is due if it remains to the end. If the holder already has a nisab, or what is joined to it, acquired wealth falls into three cases:
The scholars then differ: is the acquisition joined to the first in nisab but not in hawl, each being zakated at its own hawl, or is all the wealth zakated at the end of the first hawl? The Shafi'is and Hanbalis: it is joined to the first in nisab without the hawl; the first is zakated at its hawl (at the start of Muharram in the second example), and the second at its own (at the start of Dhu al-Hijjah), even if less than a nisab, for it reaches the nisab by joining the first. They argue from the generality of the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) "There is no zakat on wealth until a year passes over it", and from his word, from Ibn Umar:
Whoever acquires wealth owes no zakat until a year passes over it with its Lord.Reported by al-Tirmidhi (631/632) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (4/103); al-Albani judges it, in Sahih al-Tirmidhi (632), to have an authentic chain but as a Companion's statement, carrying the weight of a Prophetic report
The Hanafis, for their part, say: whatever arrives during the year is joined to the nisab present, and all of it is zakated at the end of the hawl of the first. They say: the acquisition is joined to its kind in the nisab, so it must be joined in the hawl too, like offspring; the nisab is a cause and the hawl a condition: joining in the cause, which is the nisab, all the more entails joining in the condition, which is the hawl.
They illustrate: whoever owns two hundred dirhams over half of whose year has passed, and is given a hundred more, owes zakat on those hundred dirhams at the end of their year, without disagreement; without the two hundred, nothing would be due on them: joined to the two hundred in the very principle of obligation, likewise in its due time. Isolating each acquisition with its own hawl would lead to the obligation being broken into fractions on livestock, to different due times, to the need to record the date of every acquisition and to know the amount due on each portion acquired, and to the obligation of tiny amounts impossible to pay, all of it renewing at each year and each term.
That hardship is blocked by the word of Allah:
"He has not placed upon you any hardship in the religion"
Surah Al-Hajj, 78
and by analogy with the offspring of grazing livestock and the profit of trade. Abu Hanifa excepted what is the price of wealth already zakated: not joined to the rest, to avoid repetition (thaniyy), that is, zakat being paid twice on the same wealth in a single year. The Malikis distinguished livestock from currencies: on livestock they said as Abu Hanifa, the zakat of grazing livestock being delegated to the collector, so that non-joining would lead to going out several times; the currencies, by contrast, are not joined, their zakat being delegated to their owners (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi with al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/432; al-Bada'i, 2/409; Fath al-Qadir, 1/510; al-Mughni, 3/406-407; al-Majmu', 6/497, 501, 503; Hilyat al-Ulama, 3/23; al-Ifsah, 1/333).
The jurists differ on the status of tricks aimed at warding off zakat and fleeing it: selling one's livestock before the year for dirhams to flee zakat, exchanging the nisab for another kind to cut the year and start another, destroying part of the nisab so zakat falls away, giving one's wealth away as the year's term approaches to flee zakat, or giving a dirham in charity before the year to reduce the nisab. Is this permitted and does zakat fall away, or is it forbidden and zakat remains due without falling away? Two views:
First view: zakat remains due. This is the view of the Malikis (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 8/314; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 1/505-506; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/154; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 2/14; the hashiya of al-Sawi, 3/90), of the Hanbalis within the madhhab (al-Mughni, 2/285; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 1/376), of al-Awza'i, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd, al-Bukhari (Sahih al-Bukhari, 6/2551), al-Darmi, al-Mas'udi and the author of al-Ibana; as well as of the Shafi'is Qadi Ibn Kajj and al-Ghazali (al-Sharh al-Kabir, 2/533; al-Majmu', 5/429; al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 4/77). According to this view, trickery near the end of the year to ward off zakat is forbidden: zakat remains in the trickster's liability and does not fall away through his trick.
Whoever owned livestock and sold it before the year for dirhams to flee zakat, exchanged the nisab for another kind to cut the year and start another, or destroyed part of the nisab so zakat would fall away, owes the zakat, whether the substituted wealth is livestock or another nisab. They argue from the word of Allah:
"We tried them as We tried the people of the garden, when they swore to harvest it in the morning (17) without making allowance (18). Then there swept over it a visitation from your Lord while they slept (19), and by morning it was as if harvested clean (20)"
Surah Al-Qalam, 17-20
"So they went, whispering to one another (23): 'No poor person shall enter it upon you today' (24)"
Surah Al-Qalam, 23-24
The people of the garden indeed wanted to hasten the picking of the fruits without the poor knowing, to deny them the right due on it. See: the punishment seized them for fleeing charity; when they aimed at a corrupt intention, wisdom required that they be punished by the opposite of their intention. If the threat is deserved, the act is forbidden, and the committing of forbidden acts does not prevent the rights of Allah from being due. Moreover, removing wealth from the scope of zakat is like acquiring wealth: just as acquisition cannot be brought about by a forbidden means, like killing one's heir to inherit from him, the removal of wealth cannot be brought about by a forbidden means (al-Mughni, 2/285; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/196).
This first view sets three conditions for the trick to have this conserving effect. First: that it be near the obligation; done at the start of the year, or one or two months before its end, no zakat is due, for it is not a likely place of flight, even with an indication of evasion beyond a month among the Malikis (Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/306-307; al-Furu', 2/264; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 1/505-506; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/154; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 2/14; the hashiya of al-Sawi, 3/90). Second: that one thereby intends to flee zakat; without intention, zakat is not thereby strengthened (al-Muwafaqat, 4/201; al-Insaf, 3/32). Third: that the wealth not have been spent or destroyed for a real need, otherwise zakat is due (al-Mughni, 2/285; Mawahib al-Jalil, 2/4; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 2/264; Sharh al-Zarqani, 2/120; al-Mudawwana, 1/436; al-Mughni with al-Sharh al-Kabir, 3/450; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/179; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1/396; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 2/23).
The discussions of Ibn Hajar and Ibn Battal. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says in "Fath al-Bari" (12/347), concerning the statement of al-Bukhari: "Two hundred camels and their two twenties (hiqqatan): if he destroys them deliberately, gives them away or tricks to flee zakat, nothing is owed on him": Ibn Battal reports the scholars' consensus on a person's free disposal of his wealth before the year, by sale, gift or slaughter, without intending to flee charity; and the consensus that once the year has passed, trickery is forbidden, by separating joined flocks or joining separated flocks. Malik said: whoever gives up part of his wealth in the month preceding the year intending to flee zakat remains bound by zakat at the term, based on the fear of charity referred to by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); Abu Hanifa said the intention only harms on the very day of the term, the only time it has purchase.
Al-Muhallab said: al-Bukhari meant that every trick by which one seeks to ward off zakat is a sin, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) having forbidden separating or joining flocks out of fear of charity; and it follows from the hadith of Talha "he succeeds, if he is truthful" that whoever seeks to cut by trickery a part of Allah's obligations does not succeed. One who so tricks is like one who flees the fast of Ramadan a day before the sighting of the crescent, using a journey he did not seek for that: the threat applies to him. Some Hanafis attribute this ruling of al-Bukhari to Abu Yusuf, who holds it to be an avoidance of the obligation, not the cancellation of something due; and Muhammad said the act is disliked, for it aims at annulling the right of the poor after its cause, the nisab, exists.
Abu Yusuf argued that whoever owns two hundred dirhams and gives one dirham in charity a day before the term is not disliked; and if one intends by that charity to complete the year while no nisab remains in his ownership, zakat does not oblige him and the intention does not harm him, for it has purchase only at the complete term. It was objected that the obligation is established from the start of the year, hence the lawfulness of early payment, and that the scholars are unanimous on the disliked character of trickery to ward off the right of preemption once it is due, the disagreement concerning only the period before the obligation: the analogy therefore imposes the same ruling for zakat. It is most likely that Abu Yusuf retracted, for he writes in "Kitab al-Kharaj", after the hadith "a joined flock is not separated": it is not permitted to a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to prevent charity or to remove it from his ownership to the ownership of another in order to split it so that zakat falls away; no trickery invalidates charity.
Abu Hafs al-Kabir, the transmitter of "Kitab al-Hiyal", reports from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan: every trick by which the Muslim seeks to leave the forbidden or to reach the lawful is good; that by which he seeks to annul a right, establish a falsehood or cast doubt on a right is disliked, and the disliked in his view is closer to the forbidden. Ibn Hajar notes finally that destroying the two twenties is not trickery in the strict sense but the squandering of wealth; it may nonetheless be conceived by slaughtering the two twenties and benefiting from their meat, zakat then falling because one passes below their threshold. The note also cites a debate between al-Shafi'i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, in which al-Shafi'i establishes that a forbidden act does not render the lawful forbidden, since it is its opposite, and that nothing is analogized to its opposite.
The story of Qadi al-Damghani. Al-Qurtubi reports in his tafsir (9/236), from Ibn al-Arabi who had it from Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Walid al-Fihri and others: the qadi of qadis Abu Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Ali al-Damghani, owner of tens of thousands, would call his sons as each year's term approached and tell them: "My age has grown, my strength has weakened, and this wealth I no longer need is yours", then hand it all over, the men carrying it on their shoulders to his sons' houses. At the next year's term, when he called them for some matter, they replied: "Father, we hope only for your life; as for the wealth, what desire could we have for it while you live and own it for us?" and the men carried it back and laid it before him. The purpose of this change of ownership was to ward off zakat according to Abu Hanifa's view on separating joined flocks and joining separated ones: that is a great lesson, and al-Bukhari (may Allah be pleased with him) composed on this subject, in his collection, a chapter expressly named "Kitab al-Hiyal" (the book of tricks).
Second view: zakat falls away. This is the view of the Hanafis (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/236-237; Ghumz 'Uyun al-Basa'ir, 4/222), of the Shafi'is within the madhhab (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/196; al-Majmu', 5/429) and of the Zahiris (al-Muhalla, 6/92). According to this view, whoever disposes of his wealth before the year passes, even to flee zakat, sees zakat fall away: the act is disliked among the Shafi'is and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, a sin of disobedience among the Zahiris because of the evil intention, and not disliked with Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/15; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/236-237).
Their arguments: the condition of the obligation of zakat, the hawl, has lapsed, whether there is excuse or not; obliging one to zakat on wealth whose year has not passed in full ownership would corrupt the rule of zakat (al-Ashbah wa-l-Naza'ir of al-Suyuti, p. 153). Whoever owns two hundred dirhams and gives one dirham in charity a day before the term is not disliked; and if one intends by that charity to complete the year while no nisab remains in his ownership, zakat does not oblige him and the intention does not harm him, for it has purchase only at the complete term of the year. Finally, the scholars are unanimous that one may dispose of one's wealth before the year begins as one wishes (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 8/314; 'Umdat al-Qari, 24/110-111).
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, of the Shafi'is, specifies however that this ruling holds outwardly and not inwardly: zakat falls away outwardly, but he remains bound by it between himself and Allah (al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 4/78). The Hanafis illustrate with the charity of a dirham before the complete term, the gift of the nisab to one's young son so that the nisab be incomplete at the term, the gift of the dirhams to the young son a day before the term, or the gift of the whole followed by taking it back after the year: zakat is not due. It is reported that Abu Yusuf the qadi (may Allah have mercy on him) gifted his wealth to his wife at the year's term, then took it back from her to make zakat fall away; when this was reported to Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), he said: "That is from his jurisprudence", while holding the act disliked with the Imam and Muhammad (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/380; Ghumz 'Uyun al-Basa'ir, 4/222).
The threshold is explained by the fact that what is below the nisab does not exceed the essential need: the person does not thereby become rich. Since zakat was prescribed in gratitude for the blessing of wealth, what is below the nisab is not a blessing of wealth requiring that gratitude, but belongs to the offshoots of the blessing of the body (al-Bada'i, 2/414). Shaykh al-Islam al-Dahlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) sets out the wisdom of these quantities in "Hujjat Allah al-Baligha" (2/506): the five wasq (610 kg) of grain and dates were prescribed because they suffice the smallest household for a year. The smallest household is the couple with a third person, a servant or a child, and whatever resembles it among households; the ordinary food of a person is about a ratl or a mudd of provisions per day: at that rate, the quantity suffices for the whole year, with a remainder for mishaps and condiment.
The five awruq of silver were prescribed because it is an amount that suffices the smallest household a whole year, when prices are moderate, in most lands: survey the customs of temperate lands in dearth and cheapness, and you will find it. Of camels, five heads were prescribed, the zakat being one sheep; the original principle was that zakat be taken only from the same kind and the nisab counted in heads. But camels are the largest of livestock in size and the most beneficial: they can be slaughtered, ridden, milked, bred for offspring, and warmth drawn from their hair and skins.
Some owned only a few she-camels sufficient for the needs of the caravan, and the camel was then valued, in that era, at ten, eight or twelve sheep, according to many hadiths. The five heads were therefore placed at the level of the lowest nisab of sheep, with one sheep as zakat (Hujjat Allah al-Baligha, 2/506). Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) confirms the same graduation of rates: a quarter of the tithe for trade goods, whose growth is the most laborious; half the tithe for crops watered at cost, easier in labor and yielding no return every year; the full tithe for what drinks by itself, with only the zakat of its single year; and the fifth for treasure, gathered wealth requiring only extraction.
He concludes: "Look at the proportionality of this perfect Law, whose beauty and completeness astonish the intellects and whose wisdom is testified to by sound nature; no better law has come into the world, and if the intellects of the wise and the nature of the discerning were to gather to propose something better, their proposal would not reach what it brought" (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 2/110-111).
The jurists differ: must the nisab be complete throughout the whole year, from beginning to end, its decrease however slight cutting off the year, with no zakat at the end and a new year beginning if the zakatable nisab is reached again? Or does the count rest on the two ends of the hawl, the decrease of the nisab during the year having no effect and zakat being due at the end? And do trade goods follow the same regime?
The Hanafis: only the two ends of the year count. If the nisab exists at the beginning and the end and decreases in the middle or during the year, that does not make zakat fall away, even if only one dirham remains, provided the owner acquires before the end of the year what completes the nisab. If the wealth disappears entirely, the hawl only concludes upon the completion of the nisab, whether the disappearance is by destruction or by the wealth leaving the scope of zakat, like grazing livestock fed during the year. It is the same with them for livestock, gold, silver and commercial wealth: completeness of the nisab is a condition of obligation, counted at the beginning of the year, the moment the cause concludes, and at the end, the moment the ruling is established. The middle of the year being neither one nor the other, it is only required that something of the nisab over which the hawl concluded remain, to which the acquisition is joined: if everything perishes, joining becomes impossible and a new year begins; feeding the livestock during the year excludes it like destruction (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 2/414-415; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/33; Fath al-Qadir, 2/220; al-Ifsah, 1/333).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis (within the madhhab): completeness of the nisab throughout the whole year, from beginning to end, is a condition of the obligation of zakat. If the nisab decreases during the year, however slightly, the year is cut off and zakat is not due at the end: whoever owns forty sheep and loses one during the year, sells it or gives it away, then sees another born, must begin a new year; if the death and the birth occur in the same instant, the year is not cut off, especially if the birth precedes the death. They argue from the generality of the hadith "There is no zakat on wealth until a year passes over it" (authentic hadith, cited previously). Another view exists among the Hanbalis: if the nisab existed for a complete year, save a decrease of an hour or two, zakat is due. If ownership of the nisab ceases during the year, by sale or otherwise, then returns by purchase or otherwise, a new year begins, the first having been cut off by that (al-Mughni, 4/8; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/196; al-Ifsah, 1/333).
Among the Hanbalis, no difference is made between trade goods and other wealth: all require hawl and nisab, with completeness of the nisab counted throughout the whole year, like the other wealth under this regime. Among the Shafi'is, by contrast, there is disagreement on the decrease of the nisab during the year in trade goods. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the nisab and the hawl are counted in the zakat of trade without disagreement; but the time of counting the nisab has three views, which Imam al-Haramayn and al-Ghazali called "opinions", the correct summary being that they are views, one of which is textually established, the other two extrapolated.
The first, correct according to all the companions of the school, is the text of "Al-Umm": the nisab is counted only at the end of the year, the zakat of trade being tied to value, whose valuation at every moment is burdensome; the state of obligation was therefore counted, which is the end of the year, unlike the other zakats whose nisab is the very body of the wealth, without burdensome valuation. The second, the view of Abu al-'Abbas Ibn Surayj: throughout the whole year, from beginning to end; any decrease of the nisab in a single instant cuts the year, by analogy with the zakat of livestock and currency. The third: the nisab is counted only at the two ends of the year, what lies between them having no effect; reported from Abu Hamid, al-Mahamili, al-Mawardi and al-Shashi from Ibn Surayj.
If one follows the correct view: whoever buys a trade good for a very small price sees the year conclude, and zakat is due if the nisab is reached at the end of the year. If the trade good, below the nisab, is exchanged during the year for another good below the nisab, the madhhab is that the year is not cut off (al-Majmu', 7/136-137; see also 6/495; Sharh al-Minhaj, 2/14).
The Malikis require that the hawl pass over the ownership of the nisab or over the ownership of its origin. First case: owning forty sheep throughout the whole year. Second case: owning twenty sheep at the start of the year, which give birth and bring the flock to forty before the term: zakat is due on both kinds at the hawl of the origin. Likewise: whoever owns a gold dinar, buys trade goods with it and sells them for twenty dinars before the term: zakat is due when the hawl passes over the ownership of his dinar. What joins the origin to complete the nisab is the offspring of grazing livestock and the profit of trade, unlike wealth acquired by another route, such as gift and inheritance, which receives its own hawl (al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 2/301; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/183; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 1/431, 461-462; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/332).
An indebted owner needs his wealth to cover another's claim: he does not reach the richness that calls for gratitude through payment. Debt is only counted as an obstacle, however, if it was established in the liability before the obligation of zakat; a debt arising after the obligation does not make zakat fall away, for it was established in the liability and is not removed by a debt following its establishment. Al-Haddadi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: all this applies to a debt present in the liability before the obligation of zakat; a debt arising after the obligation does not make zakat fall away, it being already established and settled. Al-Sayrafi (may Allah have mercy on him) reports: the scholars are unanimous that debt does not prevent the obligation of the tithe (that of the land) (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 2/156).
Al-Shafi'i, in the new, goes further: debt never prevents zakat, for the free Muslim who owns a nisab for a year owes zakat, like one who has no debt (Sharh al-Minhaj, 2/40; al-Mughni, 4/20; al-Mabsut, 2/160; al-Bada'i, 3/391; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin; the hashiya of al-Dasuqi, 1/431; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/341; al-Istidhkar, 3/160; al-Dhakhira, 3/44; Majmu' al-Fatawa, 25/19).
Hidden wealth. Hidden wealth is currency and trade goods. The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis and al-Shafi'i in the old, say that debt prevents the obligation of zakat on hidden wealth, even if it is of a kind other than that wealth, as the Malikis state explicitly.
Apparent wealth. Apparent wealth is grazing livestock, fruits, grains and minerals. The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis (in one view) say that debt does not prevent the obligation of zakat on apparent wealth: the assessor, arriving, finds camels, cattle or sheep, and does not ask what debt weighs on their owner; hidden wealth is not like that. The difference between apparent and hidden wealth is that the zakat of apparent wealth is more firmly established by its visibility and by the attachment of the hearts of the poor to it.
The Hanbalis except, in this view, the debt contracted by the payer to spend on crop and fruit: it makes their zakat fall away. In the second Hanbali narration, debt prevents zakat on apparent wealth and hidden wealth alike. The Hanafis, for their part, say that debt prevents zakat on hidden wealth and on grazing livestock; what grows out of the earth (crops and fruits) is not prevented by debt, just as kharaj is not: the tithe and the kharaj are the burden of the land, due even on waqf land and the land of the mukatab, even though their zakat is not due there (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 2/156 and the cited sources).