6.2. Sashe na 2: Mutumin da ya wajaba a kansa da kuma mutanen da za a biya a madadinsu - Littafin Farko na Manyan Malaman Fiqhu | Quran Course

6.2. Sashe na 2: Mutumin da ya wajaba a kansa da kuma mutanen da za a biya a madadinsu - Littafin Farko na Manyan Malaman Fiqhu | Quran Course

Yawancin malamai sun tafi a kan cewa wannan zakka ba ta dogara ga sharadin kasancewar mutum mukallaf ba (wato mutumin da ke da alhakin yin ibada), kamar yadda yake a sauran nau'ikan ibada. Don haka wajibi yana shafar yara ƙanana da bayi (da kuma mahaukaci). (Mai kula da su ko mai ciyar da su ne zai biya ta a madadinsu.) Waɗanda suka fahimci daga wannan cewa dalilin hukuncin shi ne wilaya, sun ce wanda yake da wilaya yana da wajibi ya biya sadaka (zakkatul-fitr) a madadin duk waɗanda suke ƙarƙashin kulawarsa. Waɗanda kuwa suka fahimci dalilin shi ne ciyarwa, sun ce mai ciyarwa ne zai biya zakkatul-fitr a madadin duk waɗanda doka ta wajabta masa ciyarwarsu. Wannan saɓani ya taso ne saboda sun yarda a kan yaro ƙarami da bawa, kuma waɗannan shari'o'i biyu su ne ke nuna cewa wannan zakka ba ta haɗe da mukallaf kaɗai ba, a'a ana biyanta a madadin wasu idan akwai wilaya da wajibcin ciyarwa. Malik ya tafi a kan cewa dalilin shi ne wajibcin ciyarwa, shi kuwa Abu Hanifa ya tafi a kan cewa dalilin nan shi ne wilaya, shi ya sa suka saɓa a kan batun mata. An ruwaito a matsayin hadisi marfu'i cewa: "Ku biya zakkatul-fitr a madadin duk waɗanda nauyin ciyarwarsu ya rataya a wuyanku." Sai dai ba shi da shahara.

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.

Sun sabawa a kan batun bayi a wasu al'amura. Na farko, kamar yadda muka ambata, shi ne wajibcin zakatin bayi a kan ubangijinsa idan yana da dukiya. Wannan ya dogara ne a kan batun ko yana iya mallakar wani abu ko bai iya ba. Batu na biyu shi ne game da bawa kafiri, ko ubangiji ya biya zakka a madadinsa. Malik, al-Shafi'i, da Ahmad sun ce babu wajibcin zakka a kan ubangiji saboda bawansa kafiri. Ahlul Kufa kuwa sun ce yana da wajibci ya biya zakka a madadinsa. Dalilin sabanin nasu ya samo asali ne daga takaddama a kan ƙarin da aka yi a hadisin Ibn Umar. Wannan ya shafi kalmarsa "Musulmi", wadda Nafi' ya yi adawa da ita, domin Ibn Umar, wanda shi ne mai ruwaito hadisin, shi ma yana ra'ayin cewa ana biyan zakka a madadin bayi kafirai. Akwai wani dalilin sabani kuma, shi ne ko wajibcin zakka a kan ubangiji saboda bawansa yana faruwa ne saboda bawan mukallafi ne, ko kuwa saboda shi dukiya ne. Waɗanda suka ce saboda mukallafi ne, sun sanya imani ya zama sharaɗi, yayin da waɗanda suka ce saboda dukiya ne ba su sanya shi sharaɗi ba. Waɗannan malamai na ƙarshe sun ce wannan yana nunawa ne ta hanyar ijma'in malamai cewa idan aka 'yantar da bawa kuma ubangiji bai biya zakkar fitr a madadinsa ba, ba ya wajaba a kansa ya biya, kamar yadda yake a cikin kaffara. Batu na uku shi ne game da mukatab. Malik da Abu Thawr sun ce ubangiji zai biya zakkar fitr a madadinsa. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, da Ahmad sun ce ba ya wajaba a kansa ya biya a madadinsa. Dalilin sabanin ya fito ne daga rashin tabbas game da matsayin mukatab, ko yana cikin 'yanci ko cikin bauta. Na huɗu shi ne batun bayin da aka saya don kasuwanci. Malik, al-Shafi'i, da Ahmad sun ce mai bawa ne yake da wajibi ya biya zakat al-fitr a madadin su, yayin da Abu Hanifa da wasu baya gare shi suka ce babu sadaka da take wajibi ga bayi da aka mallaka don kasuwanci. Dalilin wannan sabani ya samo asali ne daga karo tsakanin qiyasi da ma'anar gaba ɗaya ta hadisi. Wannan ya faru ne saboda ma'anar gaba ɗaya ta kalmar "bawa" (wadda aka yi amfani da ita a hadisin da ya gabata) tana nuna wajibcin zakat ga bayin da aka mallaka don kasuwanci kamar sauran bayi. A ra'ayin Abu Hanifa, wannan ma'ana ta gaba ɗaya tana takaituwa ta hanyar qiyasi, kuma hakan yana faruwa ne saboda haɗuwar nau'o'in zakat guda biyu a cikin nau'in dukiya guda ɗaya. Haka kuma sun sabawa juna a batun bayin da bayi ke mallaka, kuma masaloli a wannan fanni suna da yawa.

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.