Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > General rules of zakat > Zakat on waqf (endowed) property
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This second part of the general chapters on zakat covers 10 sheets of the encyclopedia: zakat on waqf property, the definition of complete and incomplete ownership, its criterion and illustrations in the 4 schools, usurped and lost property, and the questions of debt (held by a solvent, an insolvent or a deferred debtor), mudaraba capital, deposited property and the woman's mahr. Each school position is reported with its evidence, its classical references and the traditions cited by the authors.
The chapter opens with a point carried over from the previous part: no zakat is due on war booty (ghanima), nor on anything under the authority of the imam, since it reverts to spending on the interests of the believers. This is also the Shafi'i position: the Hashiyat al-Sharqawi 'ala Tuhfat al-Tullab states that no zakat is due on the public treasury (bayt al-mal), because it has no specified owner. Likewise the yield of a waqf constituted for a general cause, as opposed to a waqf for specified persons: zakat is due on its yield, not on its corpus. Included in this is a waqf for the imam of a mosque or its muezzin, since no specific person was intended, but rather anyone who holds that quality (Matalib Awli al-Nuha, 2/16; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1/393; Hashiyat al-Sharqawi, 2/157-158; Nihayat al-Zayn, 1/168; Qawa'id al-Ahkam fi Masalih al-Anam, 1/168).
The second issue: zakat on waqf property. Some jurists, such as the Hanafis, require that zakatable wealth belong to a specified owner; what has no specified owner is exempt from zakat. The jurists therefore differed over waqf property that reaches the nisab and over which a year (hawl) passes: is zakat due on it?
The Hanafis: one of the conditions of zakat is ownership; hence no zakat on the grazing animals of a waqf nor on horses left free to graze, for lack of ownership. This is because zakat involves a transfer of ownership (tamlik), and such a transfer is inconceivable outside ownership (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/397; al-Mabsut, 3/52; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 1/455; al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 2/281).
The Malikis: zakat is due on waqf property even for unspecified beneficiaries, such as mosques, the poor or the Banu Tamim, because in their view the waqf does not remove the property from the founder's ownership. If he endows a sum for loans which the needy borrower takes and returns in prosperity, the founder pays its zakat: the property remains his, or the supervisor's (nazir) who administers it. He pays each year as soon as a year passes from the day it came into his ownership, if the sum is a nisab by itself or combined with his non-endowed wealth; for not endowing a full nisab from the waqf does not spare him, each year, the zakat on what remains in it of his property, by estimation.
If someone borrows this sum, its zakat becomes due for one year after he receives it, even if he keeps it for several years. The borrower pays every year if he has wealth to include alongside the debt, and he also pays the zakat on its profit if he trades with it, counting from the day of the loan. In summary: the waqf money destined for lending, if nobody borrows it, its zakat falls each year on the supervisor or the founder; if it is borrowed, it is due for one year after receipt, like other debts, and the borrower pays each year his own zakat and that of his profit.
If the money stays with the borrower half a year, he makes a profit in it, returns the capital and keeps the profit for the second half, he pays at the completion of the second half, for the year is then reckoned to have passed since the loan. The rule of the year of the profit from lending thus holds even if the capital is returned before the year. This differs from the profit of the qirad: if the agent returns the capital before the year, he opens a new year from the day of the settlement (mufasala).
Likewise, whoever endows a seed meant to be sown every year on land he owns, rents or which is barren: he pays its zakat and distributes what exceeds the endowed quantity. The endowed seed remains to be sown every year; he pays the zakat of the grain and the produce that comes out, from the corpus itself if there is a nisab, even by adding it to the founder's grain if any exists, otherwise no zakat: the mentioned nisab and its zakat rest on the founder's ownership.
Likewise, whoever endows an animal of the zakatable species for distributing its milk or its wool, carrying loads or riding, or distributing its offspring: all of it is zakatable under the founder's ownership if there is a nisab, even by adding it to his wealth, with no difference between specified or unspecified beneficiaries. The supervisor stands in the founder's place, except that he pays only when the nisab is reached and cannot combine it with his own wealth, because he is not its owner.
As for the animal endowed for distributing its very body: no zakat if the waqf is for unspecified beneficiaries, neither on the whole nor on the parts, neither on the owner, who removed it from his ownership by bequeathing the distribution of the bodies, nor on the poor, who are unspecified. If the waqf is for specified beneficiaries, whoever's share reaches the nisab pays zakat counting a year from the day of the waqf, otherwise nothing. If the animal is endowed for distributing its sale price: no zakat, whether the waqf is for specified beneficiaries or not (al-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/88-89; al-Dhakhira, 3/55; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 2/332; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/205-206; al-Bahja fi Sharh al-Tuhfa, 2/369; Hashiyat al-Sawi 'ala al-Sharh al-Saghir, 3/186).
Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra (2/343-344) reports, on the zakat of the dates of endowed palm groves and of endowed camels: Malik said that zakat is due on palm groves endowed in the path of Allah and on those endowed for a group, on their capital as well as otherwise. Asked about the man who endowed camels in the path of Allah, keeping their bodies and loading their offspring: is zakat taken from them as from camels that are not charity? He answered: yes, zakat is due on them. And about the man who endows a 100 dinars as a waqf to lend to people who return them: does he consider zakat due on them? He answered: yes.
Asked further about the man who put a 100 dinars in the path of Allah for distribution, or for the poor, with the year having passed: is zakat taken from them? He answered: no, all of this is to be distributed, it is not like the first case. Likewise camels, cattle and sheep placed in the path of Allah to be distributed, or sold with their price shared: if the year catches them before distribution, no zakat is taken from them, for they are to be distributed and not left grazing freely; that is my view for camels meant for sale whose price is shared, just as Malik said regarding the dinars. Ibn Wahb, from Ibn Lahi'a, from Ubaydallah ibn Abi Ja'far, said regarding palm trees whose bodies are charity (sadaqa): zakat is due on them, they are tithed every year together with the other palm trees. Malik said so, and Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and other Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, acted accordingly: zakat is taken from their charity.
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis distinguish the waqf for a general cause, without zakat, from the waqf for a specified person, on which they differ in 2 opinions. The Shafi'is: livestock endowed for a general cause, such as the poor, mosques, fighters or orphans: no zakat, without dispute, for it has no specified owner. If it is endowed for a specified person, single or collective, al-Nawawi said that, according to the sounder view, ownership of the body of the property endowed to Allah belongs to Allah, and no zakat is due without dispute, like the waqf for a general cause. According to the weaker view, ownership belongs to the beneficiary, and the obligation of zakat on him has 2 opinions: that it is due, because he owns it fully and settledly, like non-waqf property; or, and this is the sounder of the 2, that it is not, because it is a weak ownership, as shown by his lack of power to dispose of the body of the property, like the mukatab and what he holds.
If one holds that zakat is due, may it be paid from another property? Two opinions related by the author of al-Bayan and others; the sounder is that this is not permitted, as the author of al-'Udda decided, because he cannot dispose of the property by removing it from ownership; the second: permitted, because it has been assimilated to free property for the obligation of zakat under this aspect. The author of al-Bayan concludes: the doctrine requires that, if zakat attaches to the very body, paying it from another property is permitted, otherwise not; and Allah knows best.
Derivative issue: endowed trees, palms and vines. Our companions: a waqf for a general cause, such as mosques, ribats, schools, bridges, the poor and the needy: no tithe (ushr) on their fruits; a waqf for specified persons: the tithe is due on their fruits once they reach the nisab, without dispute, and the beneficiary may pay it from the fruits themselves, since he owns them absolutely. Such is the presentation of our companions in all their transmissions. Ibn al-Mundhir relates in al-Ishraf, from al-Shafi'i and Malik, may Allah be pleased with them, the obligation of the tithe on fruits endowed in the path of Allah or for specified persons. Tawus and Makhul: no zakat. Abu Ubayd and Ahmad: if the waqf is for a general cause, it is not due; for a specified person, it is due; Ibn al-Mundhir adds: that is my view.
Shaykh Abu Nasr, cited by the author of al-Bayan in the chapter on the zakat of crops, says that what Ibn al-Mundhir relates from al-Shafi'i is not known from him among our companions, and Allah knows best. Our companions: such is the rule of the produce of endowed land: specified beneficiaries, zakat due without dispute; general cause, not due according to the school, due according to the report of Ibn al-Mundhir; the issue has a further section to be treated, if He wills, in the additional issues after the chapter on the zakat of crops; and Allah knows best (al-Majmu', 6/477-478; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/141-142; Hashiyat al-Sharqawi, 2/157-158; Nihayat al-Zayn, 1/168; Qawa'id al-Ahkam fi Masalih al-Anam, 1/168).
The Hanbalis: no zakat on property, grazing or not, endowed for unspecified beneficiaries: the poor, mosques, mujahidin, orphans, ribats or schools, and every charitable purpose to which no owner can be assigned; no zakat, for lack of ownership, like property bequeathed for non-charitable purposes, military expeditions and the like, or a bequest meant to buy what will be endowed. If the executor trades with it before spending it, the profit follows the capital toward the bequeathed destination; no zakat on either, for lack of a specified owner; if he loses it, he bears the loss for having contravened the authorization.
The waqf for one specified person, Zayd or Amr, or for a specified group, such as his descendants or the children of so-and-so: zakat is due on it, according to the generality of the hadiths and like his other property, according to the sound view of the school, since ownership passes to the beneficiary according to the sound view; another opinion holds no zakat, preferred in al-Kafi for its weakness. Zakat is due on the produce of land or trees endowed for a specified person if the produce reaches the nisab, for crops and fruit are not waqf, as proven by their sale. Zakat is taken from non-grazing property, such as crops and fruit, because it is his property, unlike grazing animals. If the specified beneficiaries are a group and each one's share reaches the nisab, zakat is due; if only some shares reach it, it is due on them; if none reaches the nisab, nothing is due, combination having no effect outside grazing animals (al-Kafi, 1/279; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 2/440; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/196-197; Matalib Awli al-Nuha, 2/16).
Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, states: if 5 wasq come into the hands of some beneficiaries of the waqf, zakat is due; if the waqf is for the poor, no zakat. In summary: a waqf of a fruit-bearing tree or cultivated land for specified persons, and a share of the fruit or grain reaching the nisab with one of them: zakat is due; Malik and al-Shafi'i said so. Tawus and Makhul are reported to have held no zakat, because the land is not his property. Our argument: he exploited a nisab from his land or his tree, so its zakat is due; the waqf remains on the body in principle and the fruit is free; ownership is complete there, including every act of disposal, and it is inherited: zakat is due, like the produce of rented land. Their argument that the land is not owned is refuted; even if conceded, he owns its benefit, which suffices for the obligation of zakat, as proven by rented land.
As for the poor: no zakat on what comes into their hands, whether the nisab of grains and fruits reaches one of them or not, nor before distribution even if the nisab is reached. The waqf for the poor is not fixed to any one of them: each may be deprived and replaced; ownership is established only by the handover and taking of what is given to him, as a new ownership: no zakat, like the recipient of zakat, of a gift or of a purchase. This differs from the waqf for specified persons: each has an established right in the benefit of the land and its produce; he must therefore be given it and it is not permitted to deprive him (al-Mughni, 7/540-541).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the madhhab of Ahmad holds that a waqf for a specific cause, such as the children of so-and-so, entails zakat on its very corpus: 40 sheep endowed for the children of so-and-so, zakat is due on their corpus, explicitly reported from him; that is Malik's madhhab. According to one of his narrations, for one who endows land or livestock in the path of Allah: neither zakat nor tithe; this applies to the path of Allah, and is realized only if he gives it to his relatives. His companions drew from this the proof of the beneficiary's ownership of the body of the waqf, and counted it as one of the school's 2 narrations. The school holds another opinion: no zakat on the corpus of the waqf, due to its insufficiency; an opinion chosen by the qadi in al-Mujarrad and by Ibn Aqil, and it is the view of most of al-Shafi'i's companions. The waqf for a general cause, jihad, the poor and the needy: no zakat according to the school of Ahmad and that of al-Shafi'i; Malik, however, obligates zakat on it (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 31/235-236).
The second condition for zakat to be due: that ownership of the property be absolute. Milk in language is the verbal noun of malaka: a man is said to own a thing when he holds it, able to dispose of it at will; "mallakahu tamlikan": he made him own it; "tamallaka": he seized it by conquest (Lisan al-Arab, 10/492; al-Qamus al-Muhit, 1/1232; Taj al-'Arus, 2/346, entry m-l-k).
According to the jurists, Ibn al-Humam and others defined it as "a capacity that the Lawgiver establishes from the outset for disposal, except for an impediment". "From the outset" excludes the capacity of the agent (wakil), the executor and the administrator; "except for an impediment" excludes sold movable goods before receipt, whose sale is impossible because of the impediment of prohibition (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 6/248; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 5/278; Ghammuz 'Uyun al-Basa'ir, 3/361).
Al-Jurjani, may Allah have mercy on him, defines ownership as "a legal connection between a person and a thing, granting him freedom to dispose of it and barring others from doing so". A thing may be owned without being free to dispose of; but it is never free to dispose of without being owned. Absolute ownership is that which includes no mention of a specific cause: one who says "this is my property" without further specification; if he says "I bought it" or "I inherited it", it is no longer a claim of absolute ownership (al-Ta'rifat, 295).
Imam al-Subki, may Allah have mercy on him, reports that the reality of ownership puzzled many theorists, and that some erred by defining it as "disposal", for the interdicted person owns without disposing, just as the guardian disposes without owning. The correct definition is: "a rational matter, or rather a legal ruling estimated in a thing or a benefit, requiring the person to whom it is attributed to have the ability to benefit from it and to receive compensation for it as such". It is a "legal ruling" by consensus, because it follows legal causes; it is "estimated" because it rests on the attachment of the Lawgiver's permission, a non-essential attachment that is not a real attribute, but is estimated in the thing or the benefit upon the realization of the causes that establish ownership.
"In a thing or a benefit": benefits are owned like things, and the lease contract applies to them. "Requires his benefit" excludes the disposal of judges and executors, who dispose without benefiting themselves, but for the owners. "And the compensation" excludes permissions of hospitality, permitted without owned compensation, and exclusive rights over mosques, ribats and market seats: no ownership despite the ability to dispose. "As such" indicates that it may fail owing to an impediment affecting the interdicted person, who holds ownership without the ability to dispose because of an external cause; the essential aptitude being present, the external accident does not contradict it.
This applies to restricted ownership, which is called ownership only loosely: it is the ownership of servants over what is attributed to them; the true owner is Allah, the Most High. Our imams reported the formulation of Imam al-Haramayn in al-Shamil: no ownership of bodies is established for servants, however broadly it is understood; after reporting that, according to al-Murtada, the meaning of ownership is that the owner is one whose act is permitted if he is capable, which includes the ownership of Allah and that of men, mentioned within the question of the creation of acts (al-Ashbah wa-l-Naza'ir, 1/252-253).
Imam al-Qarafi, may Allah have mercy on him, presents the 110th difference between the rule of ownership and that of disposal: delimiting ownership puzzled many jurists; it is a general term arising from varied causes: sale, gift, charity, inheritance. It is not disposal: the interdicted person owns without disposing; each of the 2 is more general than the other under one aspect and more specific under another. Disposal may exist without ownership, as with the executor, the agent and the judge; ownership without disposal, as with minors and the insane; they combine in the adult of sound mind with full capacity. The revealing formula: "a legal ruling estimated in a thing or a benefit, requiring the ability of the person to whom it is attributed to benefit from it and to receive compensation for it as such" (al-Furuq, 3/347; Mawahib al-Jalil, 4/223-225; Hashiyat al-Furuq, 3/348).
In his commentary, al-Qarafi specifies that the benefit is intended without the mere utility: the benefit of the houses of waqf schools falls under permission, like hospitality, permitted to whoever fulfills the waqif's condition, unlike the regime in which ownership is established for the one who fulfills the waqif's condition, to the point that he may take compensation for it. He also discusses whether ownership belongs to the declarative discourse (wad') or the prescriptive discourse (taklif); it appears to the author that it is one of the 5 legal qualifications, a particular permission attached to particular dispositions and to taking compensation, and one may reformulate: "ownership is a legal permission over a thing or a benefit, requiring its holder's ability to benefit from it and to take compensation for it as such"; some place it in the declarative discourse, and the author answers that it may belong to both (26th difference).
Ibn al-Shatt al-Maliki defines it as "the legal ability of a person, by himself or through his deputies, to benefit from the thing or the benefit, and to take compensation for the thing or the benefit". Such is the meaning of ownership in language and among the jurists (Hashiyat al-Furuq, 3/348).
Complete ownership is designated by several expressions: "absolute ownership", in al-Kasani al-Hanafi (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/9); "settled ownership" (al-Rawd al-Murbi', 1/373); "completeness of ownership" (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/354; al-Kafi of Ibn Qudama, 1/279; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 2/177; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/196). The jurists' formulations varied: is complete ownership the holding of both the body and the hand, enabling disposal (the view of the Hanafis and the Hanbalis), or is the body sufficient without requiring the hand (the view of Zufar and the Shafi'is)?
The Hanafis: complete ownership is that of both the body and the hand, as Ibn Abidin reported (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/218; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/259-263). Al-Haddadi al-Hanafi, in his Sharh of Mukhtasar al-Quduri, says: complete ownership combines ownership and the hand; ownership without the hand, like goods sold before receipt or the dower before receipt, or the hand without ownership, like the mukatab and the debtor: zakat is not due on them (al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 2/153): such is incomplete ownership.
Al-Kasani expresses complete ownership as absolute ownership: "to own both the body and the hand, the view of our 3 masters; Zufar said: the hand is not a condition, and that is al-Shafi'i's view; hence no zakat is due on dimar property according to us, by the convergence of both" (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/9). The purport of the Maliki school: zakatable wealth must be owned in full ownership, composed of 2 things: ownership and its completeness; hence no zakat on the usurper or on the finder of a lost object, for lack of ownership; nor on the slave or the debtor, for lack of completeness (al-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/44). Complete ownership means that the person controls the disposal of what he owns.
The Shafi'is, for their part, do not require the owner to be able to dispose, according to the sound view: ownership suffices, like goods sold before receipt: zakat is due without disposal, except by receipt (Kifayat al-Akhyar, 170). The Hanbalis: complete ownership designates what is in his hand, with no right of another attached, which he disposes of as he chooses and whose benefits accrue to him (al-Mubdi', 2/295; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/196; Matalib Awli al-Nuha, 2/14). Ibn Muflih adds in al-Mubdi': incomplete ownership is not a complete blessing, yet zakat is due only in exchange for a complete blessing, according to Abu al-Ma'ali.
Incomplete ownership is that in which one of the conditions of complete ownership is missing according to each school, as will be detailed. Among the Hanafis, complete ownership combines 2 things: ownership of the body, meaning the property belongs to him, and the wealth being in his hand; zakat is due when body and hand are combined. Incomplete ownership is that in which one of the 2 is missing: the body without the hand, like goods sold before receipt or the dower before receipt; or the hand without ownership, like the mukatab and the debtor. Zakat is due only when both combine, for wealth from which one cannot benefit does not make its holder rich, and zakat is due only on the rich (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 2/9; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 2/153; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2/218; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/259-263).
Wealth owned and held, allowing any disposal: this is complete and settled ownership in a person's hand. Held without security against rescission, like the property of the mukatab; held without truly belonging to him, like the debtor's; or truly owned but not held, like goods sold before receipt: no zakat in any of these cases according to the Hanafis, complete ownership, that is the combination of ownership and hand, being required for zakat to be due.
Among the Malikis, the criterion of complete ownership is twofold: to be owned, and to be complete so that the holder can dispose of it and make it grow; if one of the 2 is missing, it is incomplete ownership. Complete ownership is therefore composed of 2 things: ownership and its completeness. No zakat on the usurper, the finder of a lost object or the depositary, for lack of ownership; nor on the slave or the debtor, for lack of completeness (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/179-181; al-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/44; Manh al-Jalil, 2/41-42).
Among the Shafi'is, the criterion is single: to be owned. The owner's ability to dispose is not required, according to the sound view: ownership suffices, like unsold goods before receipt: zakat is due without disposal, except by receipt. Al-Husayni adds in Kifayat al-Akhyar (170): one who buys zakatable property without receiving it until the year passes while it is in the seller's hand, the school obliges zakat on the buyer for the completeness of ownership, and the majority decides thus; others say it is never due, because of the weakness of the property and its exposure to rescission and deprivation; others still that there is a dispute, as with usurped property.
Among the debt situations illustrating the absence of complete ownership: if a person owns zakatable wealth and is burdened by debts engulfing it or reducing it below the nisab, the most explicit view, which al-Shafi'i explicitly held in most of his newer books, is that the debt does not prevent the obligation of zakat, whether deferred or due, of the same kind or not. If the judge sequesters his property and the year passes during the sequestration: like usurped property, subject to dispute, unless the judge has assigned to each creditor a specific property and granted him authority over it without his collecting before the year has passed: the view decided by the majority is the absence of zakat, because of the weakness of an ownership subject to the creditors; others say: like the dispute over usurped property.
Among the Hanbalis, the criterion of complete ownership combines 4 conditions: that the property be in his hand; that no right of another be attached to it; that he be free to dispose of it; that its benefits accrue to him. Incomplete ownership lacks one of these 4. Property owned and held, disposed of freely, with no right of another: complete and settled ownership; held without security against rescission, like the mukatab's property; held burdened by another's right, like the debtor's; or truly owned but not held, like goods sold before receipt: no zakat in any of these cases (al-Mughni, 4/25-26; al-Mubdi', 2/295-296; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/196-198; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 2/177-179; al-Insaf, 3/14-16).
Among the Hanafis, no zakat is due on the mukatab's property: he is owner in only one respect, the hand, for his ownership belongs in reality to his master and is not safe from rescission; his ownership alternates between him and his master. If he pays the price of his manumission, he is freed of it; otherwise it reverts to the master. Just as the master owes nothing on it, the mukatab owes nothing on it either.
Nor is it due on the property of one burdened by a debt engulfing his wealth: incomplete ownership owing to the creditor's right; even if he has cash in hand, it belongs in reality only to the creditor. If his wealth exceeds the debt, he pays zakat on the surplus once it reaches the nisab, for his freedom from need. It is not due on goods sold before receipt: truly owned but not held. Nor on lost property, property fallen into the sea, property usurped without proof against him, or property buried in a desert whose location has slipped from the owner: no zakat until it returns to him in one of these cases, for the body belongs to him without the hand (al-Hidaya, 1/97; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 2/153; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/259-260; Durrar al-Hukkam, 2/203-206).
Al-Kasani specifies in Bada'i' al-Sana'i' (2/9-10) the definition of dimar property, from which no benefit can be drawn although ownership persists: the runaway slave, the lost animal, lost property, property fallen into the sea, property confiscated by the ruler, a denied debt without proof later proven by a public acknowledgment, and property buried in the desert whose location has slipped from the owner; if it is buried in the house, zakat is due by consensus; for the vineyard and the large dwelling, the shaykhs differ. He invokes the tradition reported from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and attributed to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
"No zakat on the property of the dimar", that is, property from which no benefit is drawn although ownership persists, named after the emaciated camel (dimar) that cannot be used although alive.Attributed to Ali, may Allah be pleased with him; al-Zayla'i declared it gharib and Ibn Hajar did not find it from Ali
The argument is that these properties are unusable for the owner, his hand not reaching them, and that property from which one cannot benefit does not make one rich, zakat being due only on the rich, according to the hadith. The property of the destitute traveler (ibn as-sabil) is usable through the hand of his deputy, as is property buried in the house, reachable by digging, unlike the desert, whose entire expanse cannot be dug. Likewise a debt acknowledged by a solvent person is reachable.
Zakat being a function of ownership, which exists, it is due: the holder is not summoned to pay it immediately, his hand being far from it, without this delay canceling the obligation, as with the ibn as-sabil. A denied debt without proof divides the shaykhs: for some, zakat is due, it being reachable through the proof, and one who refrains from producing it forfeits his capability without excuse; for others it is not, the witness possibly being impious, unless the judge knows the debt and judges by his knowledge, in which case it becomes usable. If the debtor acknowledges secretly and denies publicly: no zakat, according to Abu Yusuf, since the secret acknowledgment brings no benefit; he is like a denier both secretly and publicly.
If the acknowledging debtor is bankrupt but not judicially adjudicated, zakat is due by unanimous opinion: the bankrupt can earn and borrow, and bankruptcy may cease from one moment to the next, wealth coming and going. If he is judicially adjudicated bankrupt, the same rule according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Muhammad denies it: bankruptcy, in his view, is real and increases the insufficiency by closing the door of dispositions, people refusing to deal with him. Abu Hanifa rejects bankruptcy: it is not realized, in his view, during one's lifetime, and the adjudication of it is invalid. Abu Yusuf holds bankruptcy real, but the bankrupt remains generally capable through earning: the debt remains generally usable, the effect of bankruptcy merely postponing the claim to the time of ease, like a deferred debt: zakat is due. A deposit handed over then forgotten by the depositor: if the recipient is an acquaintance, the zakat of the past is due from him when he remembers, forgetting a kindness being rare and the way of access remaining; if he is a stranger, no zakat of the past, access being impossible.
No zakat either on the debt of manumission by contract (kitaba) nor on the diya owed by the 'aqila: the former is not a real debt, for the master is not a debtor to his slave and guarantee is not valid in it; the mukatab remains a slave until the last dirham, his earning being like that of a free man, so that the price of manumission is never the master's full ownership but an incomplete one. The diya belongs to the heir of the victim but remains unstable: the death of one member of the 'aqila annuls it; the obligation of zakat, however, is a function of absolute ownership. On this basis is explained Abu Hanifa's view on debts arising not as compensation for commercial wealth (inheritance burdened with a debt, a bequest of debt) or as compensation for what is not wealth (the mahr owed by the husband to the wife, the khul' compensation owed by the wife, a settlement for intentional homicide): no zakat.
Among the Malikis, the condition of zakat, on the corpus as on the rest, is full ownership. No zakat on the usurper, unless he holds compensation, in which case he pays; on the depositary; on the finder of a lost object, even though the property is truly in their hands, for lack of completeness of ownership; on the slave, whom the master may seize, a right being attached to him; on the master for what is in his slave's hand, since he who can seize it is not deemed its owner; on the debtor, whom the creditors may seize; on booty before division, for lack of establishment; on the usurped property itself: the owner pays nothing, unable to make it grow.
When the owner takes back the usurped property, the most famous view is that he pays the zakat of one single year at the moment of taking, even if the usurper returns it with its profit: it then becomes like a loan debt whose creditor pays a single zakat for all the past years upon receipt; the usurper, for his part, pays if he has the means, on account of his guarantee of the property. As for the debtor, the debt removes the annual zakat of his tangible wealth, whether it consists of a body or of merchandise, due or deferred, for lack of completeness of ownership; but for the mine, livestock and crops, zakat is due on the bodies themselves and the debt does not remove it.
Zakat is due among them: on deposited property when the owner takes it back, he paying for all the past years even if absent from the depositary; this is the famous view. According to another opinion, one single year upon receipt, for lack of growth; it is also reported that he opens a new year after taking it back. On property handed to a merchant with or without wage, a known daily wage: zakat is due every year, his trading counting as the owner's: he is his agent. If the owner is a manager (mudir), the goods in the agent's hand are valued every year and he pays with his own wealth, even if absent and unaware of the amount: he postpones the zakat until his presence and pays for the past; al-Kharshi: without dispute.
On buried property whose owner lost track of it, years having passed and then found: the sounder view is that he pays for one single year, not for all the past years, with no difference between the desert or elsewhere. On lost property found: one single year, not the past: the famous view. On property entrusted for the profit of the agent without guarantee of what may perish: if the owner takes it back after years, he pays for one single year according to the famous view, since he could not move it himself: it resembles a found object. Unless he is a manager: he pays every year with his own wealth if he knows the property intact; no zakat on the agent, even if he has compensation: the property is neither his nor under his guarantee. If the profit belongs to the owner, the latter pays every year; if the profit is shared, the owner or the agent pays (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/179-181; al-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/44; Manh al-Jalil, 2/41-42).
Among the Hanbalis, completeness of ownership is required in general, for incomplete ownership is not a complete blessing, yet zakat is due only in exchange for a complete blessing. Complete ownership designates what is in his hand, with no right of another, disposed of as he chooses, with its benefits accruing to him. No zakat on the debt of manumission, which is unstable: he may render himself insolvent and refuse payment, and guarantee is not valid in it; on grazing animals and the rest endowed for unspecified beneficiaries, the poor, a mosque, a ribat or a school, for lack of ownership, like property bequeathed for non-charitable purposes, military expeditions and the like.
Likewise property bequeathed for charitable causes or to buy what will be endowed: if the executor trades with it before spending it, the profit follows the capital toward the bequeathed destination; no zakat on either, for lack of a specified owner; if he loses it, he bears the loss for having contravened the authorization. Nor is it due on the mudarib's share of the profit before division, even if his ownership through the profit's appearance is upheld: for lack of establishment, the year does not begin before division or its equivalent.
Zakat is due among them: on grazing animals endowed for a specified person, Zayd or Amr, by generality and like his other property; in at-Talkhis: the more similar view is the absence of zakat, preferred in al-Kafi for its weakness; on the produce of land or trees endowed for a specified person if the produce reaches the nisab, crops and fruit not being waqf, as proven by their sale. Zakat is taken from non-grazing property, such as crops and fruit, because it is his property, unlike grazing animals, whose ownership cannot be transferred. If the specified beneficiaries are a group and each one's share, from the produce of the land or the tree, reaches the nisab, zakat is due; likewise if the share of some of them reaches it; if none reaches the nisab, nothing is due, combination having an effect only on grazing animals.
The owner pays the zakat of his share of the profit like that of the capital, the profit belonging to him by appearance and following his wealth, unlike the mudarib; he owes no zakat on the mudarib's share, which he does not own. Example: a free Muslim man entrusts a 1000 (dirhams) in mudaraba with the profit shared in halves; the year passes and the capital produces 2000: the owner owes the zakat of 2000, capital and profit share. On property bequeathed to a specified person: whoever holds it when the year passes pays, the testator or the legatee; if the benefit of a nisab of grazing animals is bequeathed, the owner of the capital pays as if it were present (al-Mughni, 4/25-26; al-Mubdi', 2/295-296; Kashshaf al-Qina', 2/196-198; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 2/177-179; al-Insaf, 3/14-16).
Among the Shafi'is, zakat is due upon: one whose property went astray; whose property was usurped; stolen with recovery impossible; deposited and denied by the depositary; fallen into the sea; the man captured and kept from his livestock, a prisoner among disbelievers or Muslims. Likewise the found object in the first year, remaining the property of its owner; goods bought but not received until the year passes in the seller's hand: the school obliges zakat on the buyer for the completeness of ownership; livestock or other zakatable property pledged: zakat due when the year passes, for the completeness of ownership (al-Majmu', 5/339-343).
Imam al-Shirazi, may Allah have mercy on him, writes in his chapter on requiring complete ownership for zakat: it is not due on what one does not own completely, such as the property in the mukatab's hand, who has no right to dispose of it and who resembles a foreign owner, nor on livestock endowed for him, for...
What follows rests on where ownership transfers in the waqf: 2 opinions. It passes to Allah, and no zakat is due; or it passes to the beneficiary, with 2 opinions on its zakat: that it is due, because he owns it fully and settledly, like non-waqf property; or that it is not, because it is a weak ownership, as shown by his lack of power to dispose of the body of the property, like the mukatab and what he holds (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/141-142).
Chapter on usurped and lost property: zakat is not due before its return. If it returns without growth: 2 opinions. According to the old view (al-qadim), no zakat, for it left his hand and his disposal, like the mukatab's property; according to the new view (al-jadid), it is due, for it is property he can claim and whose restitution can be compelled, like property in his agent's hand. If it returns with growth: Abu al-Abbas says zakat is due by a single opinion, the exemption resting only on the absence of growth, which has occurred. The sounder view: both opinions, for zakat did not lapse for lack of growth: the males of the livestock have no growth yet zakat is due on them; it lapsed for the diminution of ownership through the exit of the hand and the disposal, and upon return what was lost of hand and disposal did not come back.
If the owner is taken prisoner and kept from his property: 2 ways. For some of our companions he is like the usurped owner, the prevention being present between him and his property: 2 opinions. For others, zakat is due by a single opinion, since he can sell it to whom he wills: like the depositary. If a lost object comes into a finder's hand who announces it for a full year without choosing to take ownership, and one holds that he becomes owner only by choice according to the sound view: 2 ways. For some, it is as if it never came into the finder's hand: 2 opinions. For others, no zakat at all: his ownership is not established after the announcement, the finder being able to remove it by choosing ownership, like the mukatab's property.
If he owns livestock or other zakatable wealth and a debt engulfs it or reduces it below the nisab: 2 opinions. The old view: no zakat, ownership not being established, the judge being able to seize it for the creditors. The new view: zakat is due, for zakat attaches to the thing and the debt to the liability, neither preventing the other, like the debt and the arsh (compensation for bodily injury). If he is placed under sequestration over his property: 3 ways: if the property is livestock, zakat is due, growth having occurred, otherwise 2 opinions like the usurped; or zakat is due by a single opinion, sequestration not preventing the obligation, like the sequestration of the prodigal and the insane; or, and this is the soundest, 2 opinions like the usurped, since he is kept from it.
The first view is refuted: growth having occurred, he is nevertheless prevented from disposing of it and kept from it. The second is refuted: the sequestration of the prodigal and the insane does not prevent disposal, their guardian disposing on their behalf, whereas the sequestration of the bankrupt does prevent it: the 2 cases differ. The Shafi'is therefore judge, according to the sound view, that zakat is due on owned property without current disposal: usurped, sequestrated, a captive kept from his property (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/141-142; al-Majmu', 5/339-343).
Imam al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: if one's property goes astray, is usurped, stolen with recovery impossible, deposited and denied, or falls into the sea, there are 4 situations concerning the obligation of zakat. The soundest and most famous involves 2 opinions, the sounder being the new one: obligation; the old: no zakat. The second situation: the decisive ruling of obligation, famous. The third: if it returns with growth, it is due, otherwise not. The fourth: if it returns with growth it is due, otherwise dispute; the evidence for all of this is understood from the author's words.
The return of part of the growth counts as no return; return without growth means that the usurper destroyed it without being able to replace it. If he compensates it, or something perishes in his hand that would have perished in the owner's hand, it counts as the return of the growth itself, by agreement, as Imam al-Haramayn and others explained; those who decide the obligation and its absence interpret the other text. Our companions: the dispute bears only on the obligation to pay zakat after the property's return, for the past period or not; there is no dispute over the absence of obligation before the return, the companions having explicitly agreed. If the property perishes after years before its return, zakat lapses according to the view of obligation, for he was not enabled, and perishing before being enabled cancels it.
The dispute over usurped livestock bears on its grazing in the hands of both the owner and the usurper: if it grazes in the hand of either, there is dispute over the effect of the usurper's grazing and his fodder. According to the old view, the year is broken by usurpation and loss, and restarts upon return; the new view maintains it. If one has 40 sheep and one is usurped or lost and then returns: according to the absence of zakat on usurped property, the year restarts upon its return, whether before or after its completion; according to zakat being due on usurped property, if he finds it before the year's completion this builds, and if he finds it after, he pays zakat on the 40.
If the zakat of past states is obliged, the condition is that the property not fall below the nisab through what is owed for zakat: that the livestock have offspring, or that he possess other sufficient wealth. If the property is exactly the nisab and years pass, the majority says that no zakat is due on what exceeds the first year, for the view of obligation is the new one, which makes zakat attach to the thing itself: the nisab falls from the second year, and nothing is due, unless multiplication maintains the nisab. Some indicate a dispute derivable from the decisive way of the obligation of zakat on the usurped. If one buries his property, forgets it, then remembers after years or after a year: it is like the lost property: the previous dispute, and this is the famous view; another way decides the obligation, forgetting being no excuse since he was negligent, as al-Rafi'i relates; no difference between burying it in his house, his safe or elsewhere; and Allah knows best.
Second issue: the imprisoned owner kept from his livestock: 2 famous ways. The soundest with the companions is the decisive ruling of obligation, for the effectiveness of his disposal; the second: the dispute of the usurped, which al-Mawardi and al-Mahamili declare erroneous. The same whether the captive is among disbelievers or Muslims.
Third issue: the found object in the first year remains the owner's property: no zakat on the finder; on the owner, the previous dispute over the usurped and the lost. Without announcement, this is the ruling for all the years. With announcement for a year, the ruling depends on whether the finder becomes owner by the completion of the year of announcement, by the choice of ownership, or by disposal: a known dispute in this chapter. If he becomes owner at the deadline: no zakat on the owner; 2 opinions on the finder. If he becomes owner only by choice, which is the school: failing that, the property remains the owner's; 2 ways on his zakat, the soundest with the companions being both opinions as in the first year; the second: no zakat at all, for the finder's full power to take ownership.
If the finder has taken ownership: no zakat on the owner, the property having left his ownership; he is entitled to its value on the finder's liability. Two opinions on the zakat of this value: considering it a debt, or lost property. If the finder owns nothing else, the dispute over whether a debt prevents zakat will come later. If he owns other wealth sufficient for zakat, 2 famous opinions: the sound, by the companions' agreement, is the obligation when a year passes from taking ownership of the found object; the second: no zakat, for the weakness of awaiting the owner. Both theses rest on whether the owner can retrieve the thing in kind after the finder's ownership, or only in value: 2 famous opinions. If he can retrieve it in kind, the finder's ownership is weak, unsettled: no zakat, otherwise it is due. If one holds that the finder becomes owner only through disposal and he has not disposed: as if he had not taken ownership; or one says he owns only by it; and Allah knows best (al-Majmu', 5/339-343; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 3/314; al-Bayan, 3/291-292).