They agreed about some of the categories in which zakat is obligatory and disagreed about others. The categories which they agreed upon include two kinds of minerals, namely, gold and silver that are not moulded into jewelry, three categories of animals, namely, camels, cows and sheep, two categories of grains namely wheat and barley, and two categories of fruit, namely dates and raisins. There is some dispute about olives.

They disagreed about gold only when it is in the form of jewelry. This is so as the jurists of Hijaz, Malik, al-Layth, and al-ShaficT, maintained that there is no zakat on it if it is intended for adornment and wearing. Abu Hanifa and his disciples said that zakat is to be levied on it. The reason for disagreement stems from its vacillation between being goods and being gold and silver that are used primarily as a medium of exchange for all other things. Those who held them to be similar to goods, whose primary purpose is utility, said-that there is no zakat in it (jewelry). Those who considered them similar to gold and silver, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate exchange, said that it is subject to zakat. There is also another reason for their disagreement, and that is the conflict of traditions on the issue. It is related from Jabir from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “There is no zakat in jewelry”. (Amr ibn ShuSiyb has related from his father from his grandfather “that a woman came up to the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) accompanied by .her daughter, who was wearing (two) gold bracelets on her hands. He said to her, ‘Do you pay zakat on these?’ She said, ‘No!’ He said, ‘Would it please you if Allah were to put on your hands, on the Day of Judgment, two bracelets of fire?’ She took them off and placing them before the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon’him) and said, ‘They are for Allah and His Messenger’”. Both traditions are weak, particularly the tradition of Jabir.

Another major reason for their disagreement stems from the vacillation of jewelry acquired for adornment between its being gold and silver, the primary purpose of which is facilitating trade and not utility, and between being goods, whose primary purpose is the opposite of gold and silver, that is, use and not facilitating exchange. I mean by exchange their existence as currencies. Malik’s opinion differed about jewelry that is acquired for renting. He held it once to be similar to jewelry that is acquired for adornment, and on another occasion held it to be similar to gold metal that is used for transactions.

Their disagreement over animals includes their dispute over species and their dispute over categories. The disagreement about species relates to horses, as the majority maintain that there is no zakat in horses. Abu Hanifa maintained that if they pasture freely and their purpose is breeding there is zakat on them, that is, when they are male and female. The reason for the disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with the text as well as what is believed to be a conflict of one text with another. The text implying that there is no zakat on them is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is no sadaqa (zakat) for a Muslim on his horse and on his slave”. The analogy that conflicts with this general meaning is that the purpose (of keeping) pasturing horses is growth and breeding because of which they resemble cows and sheep. The text that is assumed to conflict with this general meaning is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when “he mentioned horse and did not forget the right of Allah in the horses themselves [as animals subject to zakat], as well as in their growth as wealth”. Abu Hanifa held that the right of Allah here means the payment of zakat on them, and this is to be applied to the pasturing horses among them. The Qadi (Ibn Rushd) said: “It is better if this text is treated as unelaborated (mujmal) rather than general, so that it may be used as an argument for zakat'. Abu Hanifa was opposed by his two disciples, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad on this issue. It is, however, established from TJmar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he used to assess zakat on them. It is, therefore, said that this was done as a voluntary contribution by the payees.

Their disagreement over categories (of animals) relates to (freely) pasturing camels, cows, and sheep as distinguished from the non-pasturing animals. A group of jurists imposed zakat on these three categories irrespective of their being pasturing or non-pasturing animals. This was the opinion of al-Layth and Malik. The remaining jurists of the provinces held that there is no zakat on the non-pasturing animals in these three categories.

The reason for their disagreement comes from the conflict of an absolute meaning with a qualified meaning, and the conflict of analogy with the general implication of a text. The absolute meaning is in the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “In forty sheep is [the zakat of] one sheep”. The qualified meaning is in the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “On pasturing sheep there is zakat”. Those who gave predominance to the absolute implication over the qualified said that there is zakat in pasturing as well as non-pasturing (animals), while those who gave predominance to the qualified meaning said zakat is levied on the pasturing animals alone. It is possible to say that the reason for disagreement stems also from the conflict of the indirect indication of the text (dalil al- khitab) with the general implication. The indirect indication of the text in the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “On pasturing sheep there is zakat”, implies that there is no zakat on a non-pasturing sheep, while the general meaning in the saying of the Prophet, “In forty sheep is one sheep”, implies that pasturing sheep here have the same status as the non­ pasturing sheep, but the general meaning (as a rule) is stronger than the indirect indication of the text, just as the predominance of the qualified meaning over the absolute meaning is better known. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, however, held that the absolute meaning governs the qualified meaning, and that on sheep, pasturing or non-pasturing, there is zakat, so also on camels, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is no sadaqa on what is less than five camels”, and as there is no established tradition about cows it is necessary to rely upon consensus which says that zakat is levied on pasturing cows alone. Thus, with the distinction of cows from the rest this becomes a third opinion.

The analogy that is in conflict with the general implication of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “In forty sheep is one sheep”, implies that it is the pasturing animal whose purpose is growth and profit, which is present here to the maximum. Moreover, zakat is levied on surplus wealth and surplus is usually found in pasturing wealth (animals), and it is because of this that hawl (passage of one year) has been prescribed for it. Those who restricted the general meaning with this analogy did not impose zakat on animals other than pasturing animals, but those who did not restrict it and held that the general meaning is stronger imposed’ it equally on both categories.

This, then, is what they differed' over in the case of animals on which zakat is levied. They agreed unanimously that there is no zakat on what is derived from animals, except in the case of honey, over which they differed. The majority maintained that there is no zakat on it. A group of jurists said that zakat is levied on it. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over the authentication of the tradition regarding on this subject, and that is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “For every ten bags is one bag”. It is recorded by al-TirmidhT and others.

The crops (vegetation) over which they disagreed, after their agreement over the four categories we have mentioned, relates to the species of crops. Some of them did not uphold zakat on anything besides these four categories. This was the opinion of Ibn Abi Layla, Sufyan al-Thawn, and Ibn al-Mubarak. Some of them maintained that zakat is to be levied on any vegetation (crop) that can be stored as food. This is the opinion of Malik and al-ShaficT. Some said that zakat is to be levied on all that is produced from the land, except for grass, wood, and cane. This was Abu HanTfa’s the opinion.

The reason for disagreement among those who restricted zakat to the categories agreed upon and those who extended it to storable food, is related to their dispute over whether zakat on these four categories is specific to their substance or is due to an underlying cause they represent, which is that they are used as food. Those who maintained that it is for the categories in themselves restricted the obligation to them, and those who said that it is because of the underlying cause that they are food extended the obligation to all kinds of food. The reason for disagreement among those who restricted the obligation to food and those who extended it, to everything produced from land, except those over which there is consensus, like grass, wood, and cane, is based on the conflict of analogy with a general text. The text implying a general application is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is ^ushr in what is watered by the sky, but in that which is irrigated by the watering-can there is one-half of <ushr”. Ma (what), a relative pronoun like the term alladhi, implies generality. The other text implying the general meaning are the words of the Exalted, “He it is Who produceth gardens trellised and untrellised, and the date-palm, and crops of divers flavour, and the olive and the pomegranate, like and unlike. Eat ye of the fruit thereof when it fruiteth, and pay the due thereof upon the harvest day”.193 Analogy implies that the purpose, of zakat is the elimination of need, and this is usually done through what is food. Those who restricted the general meaning with this analogy waived zakat on what is other than food, but those who gave predominance to the general implication extended it to what is besides it, except the things excluded by consensus.

Those who agreed about food differed over certain things with reference to their dispute over whether these are in the category of food, and whether analogy can be constructed upon that which is agreed upon. This is like the disagreement of Malik and al-ShaficT over olives. Malik upheld the obligation of zakat on them, while al-Shafi T disallowed this c in his later opinion rendered in Egypt. The reason for disagreement is based on their dispute over whether olives are storable food. Of the same nature is the disagreement of Malik’s disciples about the obligation of zakat on figs. Some of them held that zakat is to be levied on fruits but not vegetables, and this is the opinion of Ibn Habib, because of the words of the Exalted, “He it is Who produceth gardens trellised and untreliised, and the date-palm, and crops of divers flavour, and the olive and the pomegranate, like and unlike. Eat ye of the fruit thereof when it fruiteth, and pay the due thereof upon the harvest day”.194 Those who distinguished between fruit and olives through the interpretation of the verse have no basis, except a very weak one.

They agreed that there is no zakat on goods (chattel includes slaves) that are not intended for trade, but they disagreed about the imposition of zakat on goods that are employed in trade. The jurists of the provinces upheld its obligation, but the Zahirites disallowed it. The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute about the imposition of zakat ’through analogy, and also their dispute over the authenticity of the tradition of Samura ibn Jundub, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to order us to set aside zakat on goods that we included in trade”. It is also related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “Pay zakat on wheat”. The analogy on which the majority relied is that the goods acquired for trade have growth as their purpose and therefore resemble the three species on which zakat is levied by agreement, that is, crops, cattle, and gold and silver. Al-TahawT believed that zakat on goods is established from TJmar and from Ibn TJmar and none of the Companions opposed them. Some thought that such a situation amounts to a consensus of the Companions, that is, when an opinion is transmitted from one of them, and nothing is transmitted from another Companion against it, but this is weak.