The majority stipulates for the obligation of zakat on gold, silver, and cattle, the passage of the hawl, because this is established from the four caliphs, was known widely among, the Companions, was practised widely, and because of their belief that its being so widely known and practised without any opposition is not possible, unless there was an earlier precedent (from the Prophet). It is related from Ibn TJmar from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in a (marfiF) tradition that he. said, “There is no zakat on wealth unless one hawl (year) has passed over it”. This is agreed to unanimously by the jurists of the provinces. There is no disagreement about it in the first generation, except what is related from Ibn Abbas and Mu^awiya.- c The reason for the disagreement is that there is no established tradition about it. In this topic they disagreed about eight well-known issues. The first issue is whether a hawl is to be stipulated for minerals, if we maintain that the amount due on them is one-fourth of a tenth. Second, the consideration of a hawl in the case of profits on capital. Third, the passage of a hawl on the additions to things that are liable to zakat. Fourth, the consideration of the passage of a hawl on loans, if we maintain that zakat is levied on them. Fifth, the consideration of a hawl for goods, if we maintain that there is zakat on them. Sixth, the hawl on the benefits derived from cattle. Seventh, the hawl on the offspring of sheep, if we maintain that they are to be added to the mothers, either according to the opinion of those who stipulate that the mothers should complete the nisab, and these are al-ShaficT and Abu HanTfa, or according to the opinion of those who do not stipulate this, which is Malik’s opinion. Eighth, the permissibility of setting aside zakat prior to the hawl.

This issue relates to minerals. Al-Shafi T took into account c the hawl as well as the nisab in minerals, while Malik took into account the nisab, but not the hawl.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the vacillation of their resemblance between what is derived from the land and between owned gold and silver. Those who held them to be similar to what is derived from the land did not stipulate a AaW for them, while those who held them to be similar to gold and silver stipulated the hawl. The resemblance with gold and silver is clearer, Allah knows best.

The jurists disagreed about the hawl for profit on capital holding three opinions. Al-ShafiT held that its hawl is to be calculated from the day it accrues, irrespective of the capital itself amounting to the nisab. This is related from QJmar ibn <Abd al-cAzIz, who gave the instructions that the profits from trade should not be liable for zakat until a hawl has passed. Malik said that the hawl of the profits corresponds with the hawl of the capital, that is, when the year has passed for the capital the profit becomes subject to zakat at the same time, whether the principal amounts to a nisab on its own or reaches the nisab by adding the profits to it. Abu TJbayd said that this was not followed by any of the other jurists, except his own disciples. One group of jurists made the distinction of whether the capital undergoing the hawl amounts to a nisab. They said that if it does amount to the nisab on its own the profit becomes subject to zakat along with it, but if it does not amount to the nisab, zakat is not levied on it (even if it amounts to the nisab by the addition of profits to it). Those who held this opinion include al-AwzacT, Abu Thawr, and Abu HanTfa. The reason for their disagreement arises from the vacillation of profit between the hukm of wealth derived as a benefit and the hukm of the capital. Those who held it to. be similar to an accruing benefit said that it has to independently undergo a hawl, while those who held it to be similar to capital said that it takes the hukm of the capital, except that one of the conditions of such comparison is that zakat should be due on the capital, and this does not happen unless it amounts to the nisab. It is for this reason that the analogy for profit over capital is considered weak in Malik’s school. It appears that what Malik (God be pleased with him) relied upon is the similarity between profit from capital and the offspring of sheep, but the case of the offspring of sheep is also disputed. An opinion like that of the majority is also related from Malik.

This issue deals with the hawl of additions (fawatid)™ They agreed that if the wealth is less than the nisab and some addition other than the profit accrues to the owner thus completing the nisab, then, the hawl is to be commence independently for the total from the day of accrual. They disagreed over when the addition accrues to him when he already has wealth that is equal to the nisab on which the hawl is complete. Malik said that the addition is to be liable for zakat according to its own hawl, if it amounts to the nisab, and it is not to be added to the wealth on which zakat is now due. The same opinion about additions is expressed by al-ShafiH. Abu Hanifa, his disciples, and al-ThawrT said that all additions are to be subjected to zakat on the basis of the hawl of the capital, if that amounts to the nisab. The same is the case for profit in their view.

The reason for their disagreement is whether the fresh addition takes the hukm of wealth on which the addition has occurred or it takes the hukm of wealth that has not accrued upon other wealth. Those who maintained that its hukm is the hukm of the original wealth that is independent of other wealth, that is, wealth upon which zakat is due, said that there is no zakat on the addition. Those who determined for it the hukm of wealth on which zakat is due and who consider it to be the same wealth because zakat is due upon this wealth as it amounts to a nisab, considered its hawl in accordance with the hawl of wealth on which zakat is due. The general meaning in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is no zakat on wealth unless one hawl has passed over it”, implies that newly acquired wealth should not be added to the wealth in hand except on the basis of an evidence. It appears that Abu HanTfa relied in this upon the analogy of liquid assets over cattle. One of his principles, on which he relies in this topic, is that it is not a condition for the hawl that all the constituent parts of the wealth should comprise the nisab throughout the year, and it is enough that the nisab can be found at both ends of the year, and the hawl in one of the parts of the wealth. Thus, in his view, if the wealth constituted the nisab at the beginning of the hawl after which parts of it were lost or destroyed making it less than the nisab, but at the end of the hawl there were additions to it that completed the nisab, zakat would be levied upon it. This situation exists for him in this kind of wealth as the hawl has not been completed, yet. it is in essence the same wealth in all its constituent parts; in fact, it is more but it had shed the nisab at different stages of the hawl.

It is obvious that the hawl, which has been stipulated for zakat on wealth, is for some determined wealth, irrespective of the increase or decrease in it, either by profit or by additions or by anything else, as the purpose of the hawl is to ensure that the wealth is a surplus that is beyond the (normal) needs. This is based on the assumption that what has remained throughout the hawl without change must be beyond the needs of the owner. On this account zakat has been imposed on it, and zakat is imposed only on surplus wealth. For those who maintain that the stipulation of the hawl is to determine the growth in wealth, it becomes obligatory to say that the gains, in addition to the profit, are to be merged with the capital and the completion of the nisab is to be Taken into account at both ends of the hawl. Think over this for it is evident, Allah knows best. It was for this reason that Malik held the view that a person who had cattle that were liable to zakat at the beginning of the hawl then sold them off and substituted for them at the end of the hawl other cattle of the same species, zakat would be levied on them. It appears that he also took into account both ends of the hawl in accordance with the opinion of Abu HanTfa. He also adopted the analogy, relied* upon by Abu HanTfa; for additions to liquid assets over cattle, as we have already stated.

This issue deals with the consideration of the hawl for loans (given to others),202 if we maintain that zakat is levied upon them. A group of jurists said that the hawl is to be considered for it from the time of its commencement (as a loan) imposing zakat on it for its duration. If it is spread over one hawl, then, it is for one hawl, but if it is spread over a number of hawls, then, it is for such a number of hawls. This means that if it is a single hawl a single levy of zakat is imposed, but if it is spread over several years the zakat is levied for such number of years. A group of jurists said that it is to be subjected to zakat for a single year, even if the loan stays outstanding for a number of years with the person who owes the debt. A group of jurists said that the hawl is to be postponed because of it. Those who said that the hawl is to be postponed because of the debt from the day the loan was made, did not uphold the imposition of zakat on a loan, while those who maintained that zakat is to be levied upon it for the number of years it stayed outstanding decided on the basis of the resemblance of a loan with wealth in hand. For those who said that zakat is to be levied on it for a single year even if it stays outstanding for a number of years, I do not know of their reliance at the present moment, because as long as it remains a loan they may either say that zakat is levied on it or they may say that it is not, and if they say that there is no zakat on it then there is no point in discussing it; rather we start all over again. If there is zakat on it, then, the hawl is either stipulated for it or it is not. If we stipulate it, it becomes obligatory to take into account the number of years, unless it is said that each time the hawl is completed and he is not able to pay zakat for it (due to non-payment by the debtor), this obligatory right against him is dropped for that year. As zakat is imposed with two conditions, the presence of the substance of the wealth and the completion of the hawl, then in this case only the zakat due for the last year remains. This is held to by Malik to be similar to goods acquired for trade. In his view, zakat is not to be imposed on them until the person sells them off, even if they remained with him for a number of years.

There r is another factor in it that resembles the case of cattle that are not visited by the collector for years. When he finally arrives and finds that they have decreased in number, he is to impose zakat on the remainder on the basis of what he finds there, according to Malik’s opinion. The reason is that as the hawl passed and the owner was not able to set aside the zakat, the coming of the collector being a condition with Malik for setting it aside after the passage of the hawl, the claim against him for that hawl lapsed and he is to be assessed for the previous years, whether the amount due is more or less. This is something that contradicts analogy, and Malik relied upon camal for it. Al- ShafiT, on the other hand, considers such an owner to be liable, as the coming of the collector is not a condition for the obligation. Related to this is the fact that some jurists maintain that it is not obligatory for the owner to set aside zakat on his wealth, unless he can deliver it to the imam. In case of the absence of the imam or of an ^adil imam—if the owner believes that ^addla is one of the conditions for the imam—if the wealth is destroyed after the hawl has passed and prior to his ability to deliver the zakat, the owner is not liable for anything.

This relates to the hawl for goods and its discussion has preceded under the topic of the nisab for goods.

This issue relates to gains in cattle. The opinion of Malik in this case is the opposite of what it is in the case of liquid assets. The reason is that he bases the gains oh the capital,203 204 if that capital amounts to a nisab, just as Abu Harnfa does it in the cases of dirhams and gains in cattle. Abu Hamfa’s opinion on gains is that there is a common hukm, that is, it is based upon the capital if it amounts to a nisab, whether the gain is in sheep or in liquid assets. The profits and increase in offspring, in his view, are like gains. For Malik profits and offspring have a common hukm, but he distinguishes between the gains in liquid assets and those in cattle. For al-ShafiT profits and gains have a common hukm through the consideration of an independent hawl for them, and also the gains in cattle and offspring have a common hukm through the consideration of their hawl along with the capital if that amounts to the nisab.

This is the summary of the opinions of these three (leading) jurists. It appears that Malik distinguished between cattle and liquid assets following ^tJmar, otherwise the analogy is the same for both cases, that is, profit being similar to (a growth in) offspring and gains (on capital) being similar to gains (in stock). The tradition of TJmar here is that he ordered them to count the young lambs (in the nisab), but not to take anything from them as zakat. The tradition has preceded in the section on nisab.

This issue is about the consideration of a hawl in the case of the offspring of sheep. Malik said that it is the same hawl that applies to the mothers, irrespective of their constituting a nisab, as was his opinion about profits on liquid assets. Al-Shafi T, Abu Hanifa, c and Abu Thawr maintained that the hawl of the offspring is not the same as that for the mothers, unless the mothers constitute a nisab. The reason for their disagreement is the same reason for their disagreement about profits.

This issue is about the payment of zakat prior to the completion of the hawl. Malik disallowed this, while Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi€T permitted it. The reason for their disagreement is whether zakat is a form of worship or a duty owed to the needy. Those who said that it is a form of worship, and they compared it to prayer, did not permit paying it prior to the time set for it. Those who held it to be similar to delayed obligatory duties permitted paying it prior to the end of the period like voluntary donations. Al-ShafiT argued for his opinion on the basis of the tradition of CAIT “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) borrowed the sadaqa of al-cAbbas prior to its time”