5.4. Lokacin Biyan Zakka - Littafin Farko na Manyan Malaman Fiqhu | Quran Course

5.4. Lokacin Biyan Zakka - Littafin Farko na Manyan Malaman Fiqhu | Quran Course

Masana sun sabani game da hawl na riba daga jari, akwai ra'ayoyi uku. Al-Shafi'i ya ce hawl ɗinta ana lissafa shi ne daga ranar da riba ta samu, ko da jari kansa bai kai nisab ba. An karɓo wannan daga 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, wanda ya ba da umarni cewa ribar kasuwanci ba za ta wajaba ta zakka ba sai bayan wucewar hawl. Malik ya ce hawl ɗin riba yana bin hawl ɗin jari, wato idan shekara ta cika a kan jari, riba ma tana zama abin zakka a lokaci guda, ko jari ya kai nisab da kansa ko kuma ya kai nisab ta hanyar ƙara riba a kansa. Abu 'Ubaid ya ce babu wani daga cikin sauran masana da ya bi wannan ra'ayi, sai dai almajiransa kawai. Wata ƙungiyar masana sun bambanta tsakanin ko jarin da ke cikin hawl ya kai nisab. Sun ce idan ya kai nisab da kansa, riba tana zama abin zakka tare da shi, amma idan bai kai nisab ba, ba a karɓar zakka a kansa (ko da ya kai nisab idan aka ƙara riba a kansa). Waɗanda suka riƙi wannan ra'ayi sun haɗa da al-Awza'i, Abu Thawr, da Abu Hanifa. Dalilin wannan sabani shi ne yadda riba take a tsakanin hukuncin dukiyar da ake samu a matsayin amfani da kuma hukuncin jari. Waɗanda suka ɗauke ta a matsayin kamar amfanin da ke tasowa suka ce dole ne ta yi hawl a kanta daban, yayin da waɗanda suka ɗauke ta kamar jari suka ce tana bin hukuncin jari, sai dai ɗaya daga cikin sharuɗɗan wannan kwatancen shi ne cewa zakka ta zama wajibi a kan jari, kuma hakan ba ya faruwa sai idan ya kai nisab. Saboda haka ne ake ganin kwatancen riba da jari a matsayin mai rauni a makarantar Malik. Da alama abin da Malik (Allah ya yarda da shi) ya dogara da shi shi ne kamancewar riba daga jari da 'ya'yan tumaki, amma batun 'ya'yan tumaki ma yana cikin sabani. Haka kuma an ruwaito daga Malik wata ra'ayi irin na mafi yawan malamai.

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.

Wannan batu ya shafi hawl na ƙarin dukiya (al-fawa'id)™. Sun yarda cewa idan dukiya ta yi ƙasa da nisab, sannan wani ƙari banda riba ya shigo wa mai dukiya, wanda ya cika nisab, to hawl zai fara daban ga jimlar daga ranar da ƙarin ya shigo. Sun sha bamban kan lokacin da ƙarin ya shigo masa idan tuni yana da dukiya daidai da nisab wadda hawl ɗinta ya cika. Malik ya ce ƙarin yana da zakkar kansa bisa hawl nasa, idan ya kai nisab, kuma ba a ƙara shi a kan dukiyar da zakka ta riga ta wajaba a kanta. Ra'ayin al-Shafi'i kan ƙari shi ma haka yake. Abu Hanifa da almajiransa, da al-Thawri, sun ce dukkan ƙari ana yi masa zakka bisa hawl na babban jari, idan wannan ya kai nisab. Haka ma riba take a ra'ayinsu.

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.

Sababin rashin jituwarsu shi ne ko ƙarin da aka samu sabo yana karɓar hukuncin dukiyar da ƙarin ya faru a kanta, ko kuma yana karɓar hukuncin dukiyar da ba ta taru a kan wata dukiya ba. Waɗanda suka tabbatar da cewa hukuncinsa shi ne hukuncin dukiyar asali wadda ba ta haɗuwa da wata dukiya, wato dukiyar da ake wajabta zakka a kanta, sun ce babu zakka a kan ƙarin. Waɗanda suka ba shi hukuncin dukiyar da ake wajabta zakka a kanta, suka kuma ɗauka cewa shi ne dukiya ɗaya saboda zakka tana wajaba a kan wannan dukiya yayin da ta kai nisab, suka lissafa hawlinsa bisa hawlin dukiyar da ake wajabta zakka a kanta. Ma'anar gabaɗaya a cikin maganar Annabi (tsira da amincin Allah su tabbata a gare shi), "Ba a wajabta zakka a kan dukiya sai hawl ya wuce a kanta", na nuna cewa ba a kamata a ƙara sabuwar dukiyar da aka samu a kan dukiyar da mutum yake da ita ba sai da hujja. Ga alama Abu Hanifa ya dogara a nan ga kiyasi na kuɗaɗe masu ruwa a kan dabbobi. Ɗaya daga cikin ƙa'idodinsa da ya dogara da su a wannan batu shi ne cewa ba sharaɗi ba ne ga hawl cewa dukkan sassan dukiyar su zama nisab a duk tsawon shekara, ya isa nisab ya kasance a farkon shekara da ƙarshenta, kuma hawl ya kasance a ɗaya daga cikin sassan dukiyar. Don haka, a ra'ayinsa, idan dukiya ta kai nisab a farkon hawl sannan wasu sassanta suka ɓace ko suka lalace har ta ragu da nisab, amma a ƙarshen hawl aka sami ƙari da ya cika nisab, to za a karɓi zakka a kanta. Wannan yanayi yana da hukuncinsa a wurinsa a irin wannan dukiya, domin hawl bai cika ba tukuna, kuma a zahiri dukiya ɗaya ce a dukkan sassanta; ma ma ta fi yawa, amma ta fita daga nisab a matakai dabam-dabam na hawl.

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.

Yana bayyana a fili cewa sharadin hawl da aka sanya don zakkar dukiya yana kan wata takamaiman dukiya, ba tare da la'akari da karuwa ko raguwar da ke faruwa a cikinta ba, ko ta riba, ko ta ƙari, ko ta wani abu daban, domin manufar hawl ita ce tabbatar da cewa dukiyar tana cikin abin da ya wuce buƙatu (na yau da kullum). Wannan yana bisa zato cewa abin da ya ci gaba da kasancewa a tsawon hawl ba tare da canji ba, dole ne ya zama abin da ya wuce buƙatar mai shi. Saboda haka aka wajabta zakka a kansa, kuma zakka ba a wajabta ta sai a kan dukiyar da ta wuce buƙata. Amma ga waɗanda suke ganin cewa sharadin hawl shi ne don tantance ƙaruwar dukiya, to wajibi ne a ce ribar da aka samu, baya ga riba, a haɗa ta da babban jari, kuma a lura da cika nisabi a ɓangarorin biyu na hawl. Ka yi tunani a kan wannan, domin a bayyane yake, kuma Allah ya fi sani. Saboda wannan dalili ne Malik ya ɗauki ra'ayin cewa wanda yake da dabbobi waɗanda ke wajabta zakka a farkon hawl, sannan ya sayar da su, ya maye gurbinsu a ƙarshen hawl da wasu dabbobi irin nasu, to za a karɓi zakka a kansu. Ana ganin cewa shi ma ya lura da ɓangarorin biyu na hawl bisa ga ra'ayin Abu Hanifa. Ya kuma karɓi qiyasin da Abu Hanifa ya dogara da shi, wato na ƙarin kadarorin ruwa (kuɗi da makamantansu) a kan dabbobi, kamar yadda muka riga muka bayyana.

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.

Wannan batu ya shafi la'akari da hawl (shekarar wata) ga lamuni (bashin da aka bai wa wasu), idan muka tabbatar da cewa zakka tana wajaba a kansa. Wasu malaman fiqihu sun ce ana la'akari da hawl a kansa tun daga lokacin da ya fara zama lamuni, sannan a wajabta zakka a kansa tsawon lokacin. Idan ya kasance a cikin shekara guda, to zakka guda ce ake wajabtawa; idan kuma ya wuce shekaru da dama, to zakka ana wajabtawa tsawon adadin shekarun. Ma'ana, idan shekara guda ne, ana karɓar zakka guda; idan kuma shekaru da yawa ne, ana karɓar zakka ga adadin shekarun. Wasu malaman fiqihu sun ce a wajabta zakka guda ɗaya kawai, koda lamunin ya ci gaba da kasancewa a wajen wanda ya ci bashi na shekaru da dama. Wasu kuma sun ce hawl yana tsayawa saboda bashin. Waɗanda suka ce hawl yana tsayawa saboda bashin tun ranar da aka bayar da lamunin, ba su tabbatar da wajabcin zakka a kan lamuni ba. Waɗanda suka tabbatar da cewa ana wajabta zakka a kansa tsawon shekarun da ya kasance a waje, sun yi hukuncinsu ne bisa kamanceceniya tsakanin lamuni da dukiyar da take hannun mai ita. Game da waɗanda suka ce ana wajabta zakka guda ɗaya ko da lamunin ya wuce shekaru da dama, ba na sani ba a yanzu hujjarsu, domin muddin yana cikin lamuni, za su iya cewa ana wajabta zakka a kansa ko kuma ba a wajabta ba. Idan sun ce babu zakka a kansa, to babu amfanin tattaunawa a kai; sai mu sake farawa daga farko. Idan kuwa akwai zakka a kansa, to ko dai an sanya hawl a kansa ko kuma ba a sanya ba. Idan mun sanya hawl, to wajibi ne a lissafa adadin shekarun, sai dai idan aka ce duk lokacin da hawl ya cika kuma ba zai iya biyan zakka a kansa ba (saboda rashin biyan wanda ya ci bashi), to wannan haƙƙin wajibi a kansa ya faɗi ga shekarar. Tun da ana sanya zakka bisa sharuɗɗa biyu, kasancewar asalin dukiya da cikar hawl, to a wannan yanayi sai zakkar shekara ta ƙarshe ce kawai ta rage. Malik ya ɗauki wannan a matsayin kama da kayayyakin da aka samu domin kasuwanci. A ra'ayinsa, ba a sanya zakka a kansu ba sai mutum ya sayar da su, koda sun zauna a wurinsa shekaru da dama.

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.

Wani abu kuma a cikinsa yana kama da al'amarin dabbobin da mai karɓar zakka bai ziyarce su ba tsawon shekaru. Idan ya zo daga ƙarshe ya tarar da adadinsu ya ragu, to sai ya ɗora zakka a kan abin da ya rage, bisa abin da ya tarar a wurin, a cewar ra'ayin Malik. Dalili shi ne, tun da shekara ta wuce, mai dukiyar bai iya ware zakka ba, kuma zuwan mai karɓar zakka sharaɗi ne a wurin Malik don ware ta bayan wucewar shekara, to sai da'awar da ake yi masa ta fadi game da wannan shekarar, kuma za a ƙididdige shi a kan shekarun baya, ko adadin da ake bin sa ya fi ko ya ragu. Wannan abu ne da ya saba wa ƙiyasi, kuma Malik ya dogara da maslaha (camal) a kansa. Al-Shafi'i kuwa, yana ganin mai dukiya irin wannan yana da laifi, domin zuwan mai karɓar zakka ba sharaɗi ba ne na wajibcin zakka. Haka kuma yana da alaƙa da wannan cewa wasu malaman shari'a sun tafi a kan cewa ba wajibi ba ne ga mai dukiya ya ware zakka a kan dukiyarsa, sai dai idan zai iya miƙa ta ga shugaba (imam). Idan babu shugaban, ko kuma babu shugaba mai adalci (ʿadil) — idan mai dukiyar ya yi imanin cewa adalci na ɗaya daga cikin sharuɗɗan shugaba — kuma idan dukiyar ta lalace bayan shekara ta wuce, kafin ya iya miƙa zakkar, to ba shi da wani laifi a kan komai.

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.

Bashin bashi (lamuni) don dalilan zakka, a cewar Malik, ya kasu kashi bisa ga waɗannan yanayi uku. Wato, wasu bashin a cewarsa suna da zakka ta shekara guda kacal, kamar bashin kasuwanci; ga wasu bashin kuwa ana jinkirta hawl, kamar bashin gado; yanayi na uku kuwa ya shafi bashin mudtr™. Cikakken bayani game da ra'ayinsa a kan bashi ya wuce manufarmu.

Loans for (purposes of) zakat are divided, in Malik’s view, on the basis of these three situations, that is, some of the debts according to him are liable for zakat for a single year, like the loans in trade; for some debts the hawl is postponed, like the loans of inheritance; and the third case relates to the loans of the mudtr™ A complete discussion of his views on loans is beyond our purposes.

Wannan batu ya shafi ribar dabbobi. Ra'yin Malik a wannan al'amari ya sha bamban da ra'yinsa a kan kadarorin kuɗi. Dalilinsa shi ne yana ɗaukar ribar a kan babban jari, idan wannan jari ya kai nisab, kamar yadda Abu Hanifa yake yi a batun dirhami da ribar dabbobi. Ra'yin Abu Hanifa a kan riba shi ne akwai hukunci guda ɗaya a kansu, wato ana ɗaukar riba a kan babban jari idan ya kai nisab, ko riba ta kasance a cikin tumaki ko a cikin kadarorin kuɗi. Ribar da karuwar 'ya'yan dabbobi, a ganinsa, suna kama da riba. Malik kuwa yana ganin ribar da karuwar 'ya'ya suna da hukunci guda ɗaya, amma ya bambance tsakanin riba a kadarorin kuɗi da riba a dabbobi. Al-Shafi'i kuwa yana ganin ribar da riba suna da hukunci guda ɗaya ta hanyar la'akari da hawl na musamman a gare su, sannan riba a dabbobi da 'ya'ya suna da hukunci guda ɗaya ta hanyar la'akari da hawlinsu tare da babban jari, idan wannan jari ya kai nisab.

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.

Wannan ita ce takaitaccen bayanin ra'ayoyin waɗannan malamai uku (manyan malaman shari'a). Da alama Malik ya bambance tsakanin dabbobi da kadarorin kuɗi bisa bin ra'in ^Umar, in ba haka ba qiyasin yana ɗaya ga duka lamuran biyu, wato riba tana kama da ƙaruwar 'ya'yan dabbobi, kuma ribar jari tana kama da ribar kaya. Hadisin ^Umar a nan shi ne ya umarce su da su ƙidaya 'yan raguna da ke cikin nisabi, amma kada su karɓi komai daga cikinsu a matsayin zakka. Hadisin ya gabata a babin nisabi.

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.