The conditions of zakat

The sheets of the first chapter determine the conditions of obligation at two levels: on the person liable to zakat and on the wealth itself. The sections already published cover growth, surplus, the nisab and complete or incomplete ownership; this section completes the whole with the technical qualification of growth, the Hanafi definition of the essential need, the notion of non-exploitable wealth, the Hanafi gradation of receivables, the four opinions structuring the receivable question and the count of the nisab during the year.

Conditions bearing on the person and on the wealth

The jurists agree on the foundation: zakat is due on the wealth of every Muslim who is pubescent and sane, free, aware that zakat is obligatory, owner of the nisab in full ownership and able to pay it, once the conditions proper to the wealth are met. The divergences begin beyond this foundation: minors, the insane, non-Muslims and new converts receive detailed treatment elsewhere.

On the wealth itself, the year must run over a complete nisab, cleared of any debt that cancels it and free of any essential need, and the wealth must grow in fact or be able to do so. An important nuance frames debt: it only obstructs if it was established against the liability before the obligation of zakat arose; a debt contracted afterwards does not cancel it, and the jurists agree that no debt ever prevents the tithe of crops.

Growth (numuw): condition, cause or underlying attribute

The jurists define growth in two ways: real, through the breeding of livestock and the profits of trade; estimated, through the mere capacity to increase the wealth as long as it lies in the hand of the owner or of his deputy (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 2/222; Ibn Abidin 2/263). The Prophet made zakat obligatory neither on the slave nor on the horse of the Muslim, goods acquired for personal use:

The Muslim owes no charity on his slave nor on his horse.

narrated by al-Bukhari (1394) and Muslim (286)

an-Nawawi draws from it the principle that goods of use owe nothing (Sharh Sahih Muslim 7/55). On the legal value of this growth, the schools agree on the principle and differ on its qualification: Ibn Abd al-Barr writes that "the common principle in zakat is that it falls only on growing wealth" (al-Istidhkar 3/151), and al-Kamal ibn al-Humam records the consensus to accept estimated growth without requiring real growth (Fath al-Qadir 2/215).

• For the Hanafites, growth is a condition of the obligation: al-Kasani explains that the very meaning of zakat, namely growth, is realized only by wealth prepared to grow through trade or pasturing, the cause standing for its effect as the journey stands for the hardship (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 2/11). an-Nasafi sums up the doctrine: the nisab must be "growing, even if only in estimate".
• For al-Haskafi and part of the Hanafites, growth is rather the cause of the obligation, the word condition having been used in a loose sense; Ibn Abidin discusses this terminological quarrel at length and recalls that a cause differs from a condition in that the obligation is also ascribed to it alone (Ibn Abidin 2/259, 266).
• Some Malikites, Shafi'ites and Hanbalites speak of an underlying attribute: qadi Abd al-Wahhab states that "what counts in the obligation of zakat is growth and nothing else", since it arises with it and falls without it; Ibn Baziza writes that growth is the attribute of the obligation in its proper locus; ash-Shirbini says of sheep that "the attribute of zakat in them is growth"; ad-Dimyati adds that for coined money the monetary function stands as the cause and is always present (I'anat at-Talibin 2/200).
• Malik, on the contrary, does not make growth a condition: zakat would fall on every wealth, work clothes, beasts of plough or riding, service slaves, dwelling, ships and the food of one's household, relying on the general wording of the texts; the Hanafi answer is that those generalities target growing wealth exceeding essential needs (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 2/11).

The old saying of ash-Shafi'i moves in the same radical direction: he knew no hadith establishing the zakat of a receivable, because it does not grow; but his new path retains the obligation as soon as the wealth is the full property of its owner.

The Hanafi definition of the essential need

Ibn Malik, of the Hanafites, defines precisely the essential need that excludes wealth from the base: it is what truly wards off perdition from man, such as food, housing, weapons and the clothes needed against heat and cold; or what wards it off in estimate, such as a debt to be settled, the tools of a craft, the furniture of the home, riding animals and the books of knowledge for those devoted to it, ignorance being for them like perdition. Dirhams set aside for these needs are like the non-existent, as water reserved for thirst licenses tayammum. Ibn Nujaym objects in al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq that coined money remains zakatable whether kept for growth or for spending, drawing on the Mi'raj and the Bada'i'; the other schools, for their part, never made this surplus an independent condition, for the Law fixed precise genera of wealth whose complete nisab triggers the obligation (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 2/222; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 2/402-403).

Non-exploitable wealth (dimar)

The Hanafites call dimar any wealth from which no benefit can be drawn while the root of ownership remains: the runaway slave, the lost wealth, the wealth fallen into the sea, the wealth confiscated by the ruler, the receivable denied without proof, the money buried in the desert whose place is forgotten; money buried in the house, on the contrary, remains zakatable by consensus. Al-Kasani cites in support a statement attributed to Ali, rising to the Prophet according to some: "no zakat on dimar wealth". The transmission remains fragile: az-Zayla'i declares it strange and Ibn Hajar writes in ad-Diraya that he did not find it from Ali (ad-Diraya 1/249). The substantive argument stands: inaccessible wealth does not make its master rich, and there is no zakat on one who is not rich.

The Hanafi gradation of receivables

Abu Hanifa ranks receivables in three degrees according to the origin of the right. The strong receivable arises in return for trade wealth: the price of sold merchandise or the profit of that capital; zakat is due on it even before collection, but the creditor is not required to pay until he receives sums reaching forty dirhams, each receipt of forty dirhams bringing one dirham of zakat according to Abu Hanifa, or payment proportional to every sum received according to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. The weak receivable arises in return for what is not wealth: an inheritance of debts, a bequest, the mahr, the khul' compensation, a settlement over deliberate killing, the price of contractual manumission; no zakat before full collection, the year starting afterwards. The middle receivable arises from the sale of non-trade wealth: the price of a service slave, of a work garment or of a craft tool; two narrations exist, the sounder one deferring all zakat until the receipt of two hundred dirhams and the lapse of the year (at-Tajrid 3/1335-1337; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama 1/434). Abu Yusuf and Muhammad simplify: all receivables are alike, except the price of contractual manumission and the blood debt on the solidarity group, which owe nothing before collection.

The zakat of a receivable: the four opinions and their proofs

For the receivable held by a solvent debtor who acknowledges it and pays it willingly, four opinions structure the debate, plus an isolated fifth. No explicit text of the Quran, of the Sunna nor any consensus settles the matter, and the traditions of the companions conflict, which explains the multiplicity of transmissions (Adwa' al-Bayan 2/141).

• First opinion: zakat is due, but payment binds only after collection, for all the years elapsed. This is the path of the Hanafites and of the Hanbali madhab, of Ali, ath-Thawri, al-Awza'i, Abu Thawr and Ibn Abd al-Barr: the receivable is a property whose master can draw benefit, so its zakat binds him like his other wealth, but it is a right fixed against the liability of another, and fairness forbids paying out of wealth one does not yet control (al-Mughni 4/23-24; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 2/9-11).
• Second opinion: zakat is due every year, even before collection. This is the new path of the Shafi'ites and one narration of Ahmad, supported by traditions of Umar, Uthman, Ibn Umar and Jabir. Umar used to take zakat on the wealth of the present and the absent; Uthman taught: "zakat is due on the receivable you can claim from a solvent debtor, even if he spares you out of modesty or accommodation"; Ibn Umar said: "every receivable you hope to recover owes its zakat at each lapse of the year"; Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar taught the same for the loan (narrated by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal 1211-1215 and by al-Bayhaqi 7408-7410). Abu Ubayd retains this set with a practical motive: computing the zakat of each year over sums collected in fragments becomes unmanageable, so the precaution is to pay with the capital at each due date (al-Amwal 531).
• Third opinion: a single year of zakat after collection, however late. This is the Malikite madhab, followed by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Ata and others: growth is impossible while the wealth lies with another, and an annual zakat would end up devouring the capital, as with goods of use. In the Muwatta, Malik records the teaching of Uthman: "this is the month of your zakat: whoever has a receivable, let him collect it, then your wealth will be cleared and you will pay its zakat", and the rule: "what raises no disagreement among us is that the creditor does not pay before collecting; if years run and he then collects, a single zakat is due" (al-Muwatta 1/253). Ibn Abd al-Barr spells out the four Malikite conditions: an origin in capital or in trade merchandise lent or sold on term, actual collection, a monetary species received rather than merchandise, and a complete nisab, completed if needed by wealth that has already run its year (al-Intiqa' 2/100).
• Fourth opinion: no zakat on the receivable, collection opening a new year. This is the old saying of ash-Shafi'i and the position of Ibn Hazm, supported by traditions of Aisha, Ikrima and Ata: "there is no zakat on the receivable" (narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba 7115, 10258, 10261). The argument: the receivable does not grow, like goods of use; Ibn Hazm adds that the creditor holds only a figure written against the debtor's liability, not a species of wealth (al-Muhalla 6/103-106).
• An isolated fifth opinion places the zakat of the capital on the debtor himself, who then deducts it; it is reported from Ibn Abi Layla, Hammad and Ibrahim an-Nakha'i, and recorded by Abu Ubayd, without being retained by any school (al-Amwal 526, 1227, 1249).

The nisab during the year and trade goods

Must the nisab remain intact from the first to the last day of the year? The common basis is the hadith:

No zakat on wealth until a year has elapsed over it.

narrated by Ibn Majah (1792)

The Hanafites keep the two ends: the presence of the nisab at the start and at the end of the year suffices, a total disappearance in the middle does not break the count if it is repaired before the due date; in case of complete loss, the year restarts when the nisab is recomposed, likewise if the wealth leaves the zakatable category, as with livestock put to the stable (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 2/414-415). The Shafi'ites and the Hanbalites of the madhab require the nisab throughout the year: the death or the sale of a single beast breaks the count, unless a birth compensates in the same instant; a Hanbali opinion tolerates a gap of an hour or two. On trade goods, an-Nawawi records three Shafi'ite opinions: the soundest path considers only the end of the year, since appraising the merchandise at every instant is too burdensome; a second opinion requires the nisab all year; a third settles for the two ends (al-Majmu' 7/136-137). The Malikites, finally, hold that the year must run over the ownership of the nisab or over that of its origin: twenty ewes that lamb up to forty before the due date incur zakat, just as a dinar invested and turned into twenty dinars before the end of the year of the dinar (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 2/301; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 2/183).

Practical note

In practice the believer keeps three landmarks: his zakat arises from wealth that grows in fact or in potential, it is computed on a nisab whose integrity at the two ends of the year suffices on the most followed path, and a solvent acknowledged receivable follows the opinion of his school, the most widespread attitude being to include it every year in the base when collection remains possible.