The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

They agreed unanimously that the Muslims are the addressees in the command, whether male or female, minor or major, slave or freeman, because of the preceding tradition of Ibn TJmar, except the deviation by al-Layth, who exempted the residents of the capital from the obligation to pay zakat al-fitr, and restricted it to the residents of the villages, but he has no evidence for this. Another deviation is found in the opinion of those who do not make it obligatory on behalf of the orphans. As to the persons on whose behalf it is obligatory, they agreed that it is obligatory on each person who is able to pay it on his own behalf, for it is a zakat on the person and not on wealth. It is also obligatory on the person to pay it on behalf of his minor children if they do not own independent wealth, and also for slaves if they do not own any wealth. They differed over what is besides this.

The summary of Malik’s opinion is that a person is obliged to pay zakat al- fitr on behalf of all persons whose maintenance is obligatory on him. Al-ShafiT agreed with him on this, but they differ with reference to their dispute over whom a man is obliged to maintain if he is in difficult straits. Abu HanTfa opposed him with respect to a wife and said that she is to pay for herself. Abu Thawr opposed them in the case of a slave who owns wealth. He said that if he has wealth he is to pay for himself, and his master is not to pay on his behalf. This was also upheld by the Zahirites. The majority maintain that a man is not obliged to pay on behalf of his minor children if they have their own wealth sufficient for zakat al-fitr. This was the opinion of al-Shafi*!, Abu HanTfa, and Malik. Al-Hasan said that the liability is upon the father, and if he pays it out of the wealth of his son (child) he is to compensate it.

Affluence is not a condition for this kind of zakat, according to most of the jurists, and there is no nisdb, but they only stipulated that this zakat be a surplus over his need for food for himself and for his family. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that it is not obligatory on a person entitled to claim sadaqa, as it is not possible that a person should be liable for it as well as entitled to it. This is evident, Allah knows best.

The majority maintain that this zakat is not dependent on the prerequisite of being a mukallaf (that is, a person responsible for the performance of worship), as is the case with other forms of worship. The obligation, therefore, applies to minors arid slaves (and to the insane person). (It is to be paid on their behalf by their guardian or maintainer.) Those who understood from this that the underlying cause of the hukm is wilaya said that the w/f is under an obligation to pay the sadaqa (zakat al-fitr) for all those who are under his guardianship. Those who understood the cause to be maintenance said that it is the maintainer who is to pay the zakat al-fitr for all those whom he is obliged to maintain under the law. This disagreement arose because they agreed over the minor and the slave, and it is these two cases that point out that this zakat is not linked to the person of the mukallaf alone, but is owed on behalf of others if guardianship and the obligation to maintain exist. Malik, then, maintained that the underlying cause is the obligation to maintain, while Abu HanTfa held that the cause here is wilaya, and for that reason they differed over the wife. It is related as a marfuS tradition that: “Pay the zakat al-fitr on behalf of all those whose burden of maintenance has been placed upon you”. It is, however, not well-known.

They disagreed over the case of slaves on a number of issues. The first, as we have mentioned, is the obligation of his zakat on his master if he (the slave) has wealth. This is based on the point of whether he can or cannot own something. The second case is about the slave who is a disbeliever, whether he (the master) should pay zakat on his behalf. Malik, al-ShafiT, and Ahmad said that there is no obligation of zakat on the master for his disbelieving slave. The KufTs said that he is liable for zakat on his behalf. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over the addition on the issue laid down in the tradition of Ibn TJmar. This relates to his words “the Muslims”, over which Nafic has been opposed, as Ibn TJmar being the narrator of the tradition also held the opinion that zakat is to be paid on behalf, of disbelieving slaves. There is another reason for the disagreement and that is whether the obligation of zakat on the master for his slave is due to the fact that the slave is a mukallaf or whether he is property. Those who maintained that it is due to his being a mukallaf stipulated that being a believer is a condition, while those who said that it is due to his being property did not stipulate it. These latter jurists said that this is indicated by the consensus of the jurists that if the slave is freed and the master has not paid zakat al-fitr on his behalf, it is not obligatory for him to pay as in the case in expiation. The third issue is about the mukdtab. Malik and Abu Thawr said that-the master is to pay zakat al-fitr on his behalf. Al-Shafi T, Abu HanTfa, and Ahmad said that c he is not obliged to pay on his behalf. The reason for the disagreement emanates from the vacillation of the case of the mukdtab between a freeman and slave. The fourth is the case of slaves acquired for trade. Malik, al-ShaficT, and Ahmad held that the master is obliged to pay zakat al-fitr on their behalf, while Abu HanTfa and others besides him said that there is no sadaqa payable for slaves owned for purposes of trade. The reason for the disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with the general implication (in the tradition). This is so as the general implication of the word slave (used in the preceding tradition) implies the obligation of zakat for slaves owned for trade as well as others. In Abu HanTfa’s view this general implication is restricted by analogy, and that is due to the convergence of tw'o kinds of zakat in a single type of wealth. They disagreed, likewise, in the case of slaves owned by slaves and the cases under this topic are many.