Cikakken bayani game da wannan nau'in ibada, bayan tabbatar da wajibcinta, an rarraba shi zuwa surori biyar. Babi na farko yana magana ne a kan mutanen da ta wajaba a kansu. Babi na biyu yana tattaunawa kan gano nau'o'in dukiya da ake wajabta ta a kansu. Babi na uku yana bayani kan gano adadin kaso da yawan kudin da ake karbar ta a kansu. Babi na huɗu yana magana kan gano lokutan da ake karbar ta da lokutan da ba a karbar ta. Babi na biyar yana magana kan gano mutanen da za a bayar da ita a gare su da kuma adadin abin da ya kamata su samu.

A comprehensive discussion191 of this form of worship, after the determina­ tion of its obligation, is covered in five chapters. The first chapter is about the persons on whom it is obligatory. The second chapter deals with* the identification of the kinds of wealth on which it is imposed. The third chapter is abour the identification of the rates and the amounts on which it is levied. The fourth chapter is about the identification of the periods during which it is levied and the periods in which it is not. The fifth chapter is about the identification of the persons for whom it is to be paid and of the amounts due to them.

Wajibcin wannan aiki ta hanyar Alkur'ani, da sunna, da ijma'i (yarjejeniyar malamai) an san shi sosai, kuma babu wata takaddama a kan haka.

The determination of its obligation through the Qut°an, the sunna, and from ijm# (consensus) is well-known, and there is no dispute about this.

Sun amince cewa wajibi ne a kan kowane Musulmi wanda ya zama 'yantacce, baligi, mai hankali, kuma mai mallakar dukiya daidai da mafi karancin adadin da aka tsara (nisab) bisa cikakken mallaka (wanda babu wani nauyi a kansa). Sun sabawa juna game da wajibcinsa a kan marayu, mahaukaci, bayi, ahlu al-dhimmah, da mutumin da mallakarsa ba ta cika ba (mai nauyi), kamar mutumin da ke bin bashi ko kuma ana bin sa bashi, ko kuma idan misali babban jarin dukiyar yana hannun wani abu da aka tsare (habs, waqf).

They agreed that it is obligatory upon every Muslim who is free, bdligk, sane, and who owns wealth equal to the (minimum) prescribed scale (nisdb) through a complete (unencumbered) ownership. They disagreed about its obligation upon the orphan, the insane, the slaves, the ahi al-dhimmay and the person with deficient (encumbered) ownership like a person who is in debt or is a creditor, or when for example the capital (of the wealth) is held in a trust (habs, waqf}.

Game da ƙananan yara, wani rukuni ya ce zakka tana wajaba a kan dukiyarsu. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Umar, Jabir, da ‘A’isha daga cikin Sahabbai, da Malik, al-Shafi‘i, al-Thawri, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, da wasu daga cikin malaman fiqhu na garuruwa. Wani rukuni kuma ya ce babu zakka kwata-kwata a kan dukiyar ƙarami. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin al-Nakha‘i, al-Hasan, da Sa‘id ibn Jubayr daga cikin Tabi‘ai. Wani rukuni na malaman fiqhu ya bambanta tsakanin amfanin ƙasa da dukiyar da ba ta fito daga ƙasa ba. Sun ce akwai zakka a kan amfanin ƙasa, amma babu zakka a kan abin da ke bayan haka kamar dabbobi, kuɗin hannu, da kayan ciniki. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin Abu Hanifa da almajiransa. Wani rukuni kuma ya bambanta tsakanin kuɗin hannu da sauran abubuwa, yana cewa akwai zakka a kan dukiya sai dai a kan kuɗin hannu.

With respect to minors, one group said that zakat is obligatory on their wealth. This was the opinion of ‘AIT, Ibn ^Umar, Jabir, and cA?isha from among the Companions, and of Malik, al-Shafi T, al-ThawrT, Ahmad, c Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and others from among the.jurists of the provinces. Another group said that there is no zakat at all on the wealth of the minor. This was the opinion of al-Nakha'i, al-Hasan, and SacTd ibn Jubayr from the Tabi un. One group of jurists made a distinction between the yield of c the land and wealth not derived from the land. They said that there is zakat on the yield from the land, but there is no zakat on what is besides this like cattle, liquid assets, goods (chattel). This was the opinion of Abu Harnfa and his disciples. Yet another group distinguished between liquid assets and other things saying that there is zakat on the wealth except on liquid assets.

Dalilin rashin jituwarsu game da mutanen da zakka ke wajaba a kansu ya samo asali ne daga sabanin da suka yi game da yanayin zakka a shari'a, ko ibada ce kamar sallah da azumi, ko kuma haƙƙi ne wajibi na talakawa a kan dukiyar masu wadata. Waɗanda suka ce ibada ce suka sanya balaga ta mutum a matsayin sharaɗi na wajibci, yayin da waɗanda suka ce haƙƙi ne wajibi na talakawa da mabuƙata a kan dukiyar masu arziki ba su yi la'akari da balagar mutum ba, da sauran abubuwa. Waɗanda suka bambanta tsakanin amfanin ƙasa da abin da ba ya fitowa daga gare ta, da kuma tsakanin dukiya da ake gani da wadda ba a gani ba, to, a wannan lokaci ban san hujjar da suka dogara a kanta ba.

Wannan batu ya shafi 'ya'yan itace daga bishiyoyi, idan bishiyoyin mallakar wani waqafi ne. Malik da al-Shafi'i sun kasance suna wajabta zakka a kansu, yayin da Makhul da Tawus suke cewa babu zakka a kansu. Wata ƙungiyar malamai ta kasance tana yin bambanci idan bishiyoyin waqafi ne ga mabukata gabaɗaya ko kuma ga wata takamaiman ƙungiya. Sun wajabta zakka a kansu idan waɗanda za su amfana ƙungiya ce ƙayyadaddiya (takamaimai), amma ba su wajabta ba idan waɗanda za su amfana mabukata ne gabaɗaya. Babu hujja wajen wajabta zakka a kan mabukatan, saboda abubuwa biyu masu hana hakan suna aiki a cikin wannan: na farko, hakan yana nufin mallaka mara cikakkiyar ma'ana, kuma na biyu, mabukata rukuni ne marar iyaka na mutane da ake kashe kuɗaɗen zakka a kansu, ba waɗanda ake bin su zakka ba.

This issue relates to fruit from trees, when, the trees are the property of a trust. Malik and al-Shafi T used to impose zakat c on them, while Makhul and Tawus used to say that there is no zakat on them. A group of jurists used to make a distinction when the trees were a trust for the needy generally or for a specified group. They imposed zakat on them when the beneficiaries were a determined (specified) group, but they did not do so when the beneficiaries were the needy generally. There is no justification in imposing the zakat on the needy as two disqualifying factors operate in this: first, it amounts to a deficient ownership, and second, the needy are an indeterminate category of people on whom the zakat funds are to be spent and not those from who it is due.

Mas'ala ta biyu ta shafi filaye da aka bayar da su haya. Tana magana ne a kan wanda ke da alhakin zakkar amfanin wannan fili. Wasu malaman fiqhu sun ce zakka tana wuyan mai haya, wanda shi ne mai shuka, kuma wannan ita ce ra'ayin Malik, al-Shafi'i, al-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Thawr, da wasu gungun malaman fiqhu. Abu Hanifa da almajiransa kuwa sun tabbatar da cewa zakka tana wuyan mai filin, kuma wanda ya yi hayarsa daga gare shi ba shi da wani abin da zai biya.

The second issue relates to land given out on rent. It deals with the question as to who is liable for zakat on the yield of this land. A group of jurists said that the zakat is to be levied on the tenant, who is the owner of the plants. This was the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi T, al-ThawrT, Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Thawr, c and a group of jurists. Abu HanTfa and his disciples maintained that zakat is due from the owner of the land and the person who rents it from him does not owe anything.

Dalilin rashin jituwarsu ya samo asali ne daga tambayar ko 'ushr (hishr) wajibi ne da ya shafi ƙasa, ko da ya shafi noma, ko kuma da duka biyun. Babu wanda ya ce wajibi ne da ya shafi duka biyun, alhali kuwa a zahiri wajibi ne da ya shafi duka biyun. Sun amince cewa wajibi ne da ya rataya ga ɗayan biyun, amma sun saɓa kan wanene ya fi cancanta a danganta shi da abin da ake da yarjejeniya a kansa, wato lokacin da amfanin gona da ƙasa suka zama mallakin mai guda ɗaya. Mafi yawan malamai sun tabbatar da cewa yana da alaƙa da abin da za a fitar da zakka daga cikinsa, wato hatsi (ko amfanin gona). Abu Hanifa kuwa ya tabbatar da cewa yana da alaƙa da abin da wajibi ya dogara a kansa, wato ƙasa.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the question of whether hishr is a duty related to the land or to cultivation or to both. No one has said that it is a duty related to both when, in fact, it is a duty related to both. They agreed that it is a duty incumbent upon one of the two, but they disagreed on which one has precedence for being associated with a point on which there is agreement, and that is the occasion when the crop as well as the land belong to a single owner. The majority maintained that it is related to the thing from which zakat is to be paid, and that is grain (or the yield). Abu HanTfa maintained, however, that it is related to the thing that is the basis of the obligation, and that is land.

Dangane da sabanin da suka yi game da ƙasar kharaj, idan aka miƙa ta ga Musulmi, shin ana ɗora ʿushr a kanta tare da kharaj ko kuwa babu ʿushr, to galibin malamai sun tabbatar da cewa akwai ʿushr, wato zakka, yayin da Abu Hanifa da almajiransa suka ce babu ʿushr a kanta. Dalilin sabanin nasu, kamar yadda muka faɗa, yana samo asali ne daga tambayar ko zakka wajibi ne da ya shafi ƙasa ko kuwa wajibi ne da ya shafi amfanin gona. Idan muka ce wajibi ne da ya shafi ƙasa, to ba za a iya haɗa wajibai biyu a kanta a lokaci guda ba, waɗanda su ne ʿushr da kharaj. Idan kuma muka ce zakka tana da alaƙa da amfanin gona, to kharaj zai kasance a kan ƙasa, zakka kuma a kan amfanin gona. Wannan sabani yana tasowa ne saboda mallaka ba ta cika ba, kamar yadda muka bayyana, kuma saboda haka ne malamai suka yi sabani game da sayar da ƙasar kharaj. Amma idan aka miƙa ƙasar ʿushr ga wani zimmi wanda yake noma ta, galibin malamai sun ce babu wani nauyi a kansa. Al-Nu'man ya ce idan zimmi ya sayi ƙasar ʿushr, sai ta koma ƙasar kharaj. Da alama ya ɗauki ʿushr a matsayin wajibi da ake bin ƙasar Musulmi, ya kuma ɗauki kharaj a matsayin wajibi da ake bin ƙasar zimmawa, amma bisa wannan ƙa'ida ya zama dole ya ce idan aka miƙa ƙasar kharaj ga Musulmi, za ta koma ƙasar ʿushr, kamar yadda a ra'ayinsa idan aka miƙa ƙasar ʿushr ga zimmi, za ta koma ƙasar kharaj.

Akwai ƙananan batutuwa masu alaƙa da mai dukiya waɗanda tattaunawarsu ta dace a wannan sashe. Na farko daga cikinsu shi ne (halin da ake ciki) idan mutum ya ware zakka amma ta ɓace. Na biyu, idan yana yiwuwa a ware zakka amma wani ɓangare na dukiyar ya lalace kafin a ware zakkar. Na uku, inda mai dukiya yana da wajibcin biyan zakka amma ya mutu kafin ya biya ta. Na huɗu, wane ne zai biya zakka idan ya sayar da amfanin gona ko 'ya'yan itace da zakka ta wajaba a kansu, haka kuma idan ya ba da su kyauta.

There are sub-issues related to the owner of wealth the discussion of which is suitably placed is this section. The first of these is (the situation) when a man sets aside zakat but it is lost. Second, when the setting aside of zakat is possible but when part of the wealth is destroyed before zakat is set aside. Third, where the owner was under an obligation to pay zakat, but died before paying it. Fourth, who is to pay zakat if he sells off the crop or fruit on which zakat was due, and similarly when he gives it away as a gift.

Ce (mas'ala) ta shafi matsalar inda mai dukiya ya ware zakka sannan ta salwanta. Wata jama'a na malamai sun ce a lissafa masa ita. Wata jama'a kuma sun ce yana da alhakinta har sai ya isar da ita zuwa wurinta. Jama'a ta uku sun bambanta tsakanin ya ware ta bayan lokacin da zai yiwu a yi hakan, da kuma ya ware ta (nan da nan) a farkon lokacin da wajibi ya tasowa da kuma lokacin da zai yiwu. Wasu daga cikin wadannan malamai sun ce idan ya ware ta 'yan kwanaki bayan lokacin da wajibi ya tasowa da kuma zamowar yin hakan, to yana da alhakin ta, amma idan ya ware ta a farkon lokacin da wajibi ya tasowa kuma babu sakaci daga bangarensa, to ba shi da alhakin. Wannan ra'ayi ne sananne a makarantar Malik. Jama'a ta hudu na malamai sun ce idan akwai sakaci daga bangarensa, to zai biya diyya, amma idan bai yi sakaci ba, zai biya zakka a kan abin da ya rage kawai. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Abu Thawr da al-Shafi'i. Jama'a ta biyar sun ce abin da ya salwanta za a lissafa shi a matsayin asara ga dukkan bangarori, kuma mabukata da mai dukiya duka za a dauke su a matsayin masu hadin mallaka gwargwadon rabonsu a cikin sauran dukiyar, kamar yadda ake yi da abokan hulda biyu idan wani bangare na jarin hadin gwiwa ya salwanta, amma suna ci gaba da zama abokan hulda a cikin sauran dukiyar a daidai gwargwado. Don haka, mun kai ga ra'ayoyi biyar a kan wannan mas'ala: na farko, cewa ba ya biyan diyya kwata-kwata; na biyu, cewa koyaushe yana biyan diyya; na uku, cewa yana biyan diyya idan ya yi sakaci, amma ba ya biyan idan bai yi sakaci ba; na hudu, cewa yana biyan diyya idan ya yi sakaci kuma yana biyan zakka a kan abin da ya rage idan bai yi ba; na biyar, cewa su (mai dukiya da mabukata) suna zama abokan hulda a cikin sauran dukiyar.

This (issue) deals with the problem where the owner sets aside zakat and it is lost. A group of jurists said that he is to be given credit for it. Another group said that he is liable for it till he delivers it to its location. A third group made a distinction between his setting it aside later than when it was possible to do so and between setting it aside (promptly) at the beginning of the time when the obligation arises and when it is possible to do so. Some of these jurists said that if he sets it aside some days after the time at which the obligation arises and the possibility to do so, then he is liable but if he sets it aside at the first moment obligation arises and there was no negligence on his part he is not liable. This is a well-known opinion in Malik’s school. A fourth group of jurists said that if there was negligence on his part he is to compensate for it, but if he was not negligent he is to pay zakat on the remainder alone. This was the opinion of Abu Thawr and al-ShaficT. A fifth group said that what has been lost is to be counted as a loss for all parties, and the needy people as well as the owner are to be considered co-owners in proportion to their shares in the remaining wealth, as (is the case) with two partners when part of the common capital is lost but remain partners in the residue in the same ratio. Thus, we arrive at five opinions on the issue: first, that he is not to compensate for the loss at all; second, that he always compensates; third, that he compensates if he was negligent, but does not if he was not negligent; fourth, that he compensates if he was negligent and pays zakat on the residue if he was not; and fifth, that they (the owner and the needy) become partners in the remaining wealth.

Ce (mas'ala) ta shafi matsalar inda mai dukiya ya ware zakka sannan ta salwanta. Wata jama'a na malamai sun ce a lissafa masa ita. Wata jama'a kuma sun ce yana da alhakinta har sai ya isar da ita zuwa wurinta. Jama'a ta uku sun bambanta tsakanin ya ware ta bayan lokacin da zai yiwu a yi hakan, da kuma ya ware ta (nan da nan) a farkon lokacin da wajibi ya tasowa da kuma lokacin da zai yiwu. Wasu daga cikin wadannan malamai sun ce idan ya ware ta 'yan kwanaki bayan lokacin da wajibi ya tasowa da kuma zamowar yin hakan, to yana da alhakin ta, amma idan ya ware ta a farkon lokacin da wajibi ya tasowa kuma babu sakaci daga bangarensa, to ba shi da alhakin. Wannan ra'ayi ne sananne a makarantar Malik. Jama'a ta hudu na malamai sun ce idan akwai sakaci daga bangarensa, to zai biya diyya, amma idan bai yi sakaci ba, zai biya zakka a kan abin da ya rage kawai. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Abu Thawr da al-Shafi'i. Jama'a ta biyar sun ce abin da ya salwanta za a lissafa shi a matsayin asara ga dukkan bangarori, kuma mabukata da mai dukiya duka za a dauke su a matsayin masu hadin mallaka gwargwadon rabonsu a cikin sauran dukiyar, kamar yadda ake yi da abokan hulda biyu idan wani bangare na jarin hadin gwiwa ya salwanta, amma suna ci gaba da zama abokan hulda a cikin sauran dukiyar a daidai gwargwado. Don haka, mun kai ga ra'ayoyi biyar a kan wannan mas'ala: na farko, cewa ba ya biyan diyya kwata-kwata; na biyu, cewa koyaushe yana biyan diyya; na uku, cewa yana biyan diyya idan ya yi sakaci, amma ba ya biyan idan bai yi sakaci ba; na hudu, cewa yana biyan diyya idan ya yi sakaci kuma yana biyan zakka a kan abin da ya rage idan bai yi ba; na biyar, cewa su (mai dukiya da mabukata) suna zama abokan hulda a cikin sauran dukiyar. Dalilin sabanin ya samo asali ne daga kwatancen zakka da bashi, wato wajibcin yana da alaka da abin da ake bin mutum (dogaro da hakkin mutum) ba da dukiyar kanta ba, ko kuma kwatancenta da wajibai da suke da alaka da dukiyar kanta ba da hakkin mai rike da dukiyar ba, kamar yadda yake a batun amintattu da wasu. Wadanda suka dauki masu dukiya kamar amintattu sun ce idan ya ware zakkar sannan ta salwanta, babu wani abu da ya rataya a wuyansa. Wadanda suka dauke su kamar masu bashi sun ce suna da hakkin biya (na asara). Wadanda suka banbanta bisa sakaci da rashinsa, sun hada su da amintattu ta kowane fanni, domin amintaccen yana biya (na asara) idan ya yi sakaci. Wadanda suka tabbatar da cewa idan bai yi sakaci ba, to zai biya zakka a kan sauran dukiyar, sun kwatanta mutumin da ya rasa wani bangare na dukiyarsa bayan ya ware zakka da wanda ya rasa wani bangare na dukiyarsa kafin wajibcin ya fara; kamar yadda wancan yake biyan zakka a lokacin wajibcin a kan abin da ke hannunsa, haka wannan zai biya zakka a kan abin da ke hannunsa. Sabanin yana tasowa ne daga banbancin yadda ake kwatanta mai dukiya da mai bashi, da amintacce, da abokin hulda, da wanda ya rasa wani bangare na dukiyarsa kafin wajibci.

This (issue) deals with the problem where the owner sets aside zakat and it is lost. A group of jurists said that he is to be given credit for it. Another group said that he is liable for it till he delivers it to its location. A third group made a distinction between his setting it aside later than when it was possible to do so and between setting it aside (promptly) at the beginning of the time when the obligation arises and when it is possible to do so. Some of these jurists said that if he sets it aside some days after the time at which the obligation arises and the possibility to do so, then he is liable but if he sets it aside at the first moment obligation arises and there was no negligence on his part he is not liable. This is a well-known opinion in Malik’s school. A fourth group of jurists said that if there was negligence on his part he is to compensate for it, but if he was not negligent he is to pay zakat on the remainder alone. This was the opinion of Abu Thawr and al-ShaficT. A fifth group said that what has been lost is to be counted as a loss for all parties, and the needy people as well as the owner are to be considered co-owners in proportion to their shares in the remaining wealth, as (is the case) with two partners when part of the common capital is lost but remain partners in the residue in the same ratio. Thus, we arrive at five opinions on the issue: first, that he is not to compensate for the loss at all; second, that he always compensates; third, that he compensates if he was negligent, but does not if he was not negligent; fourth, that he compensates if he was negligent and pays zakat on the residue if he was not; and fifth, that they (the owner and the needy) become partners in the remaining wealth. The reason for their disagreement stems, from the comparison between zakat and debts, that is, the duty is associated with liability and not with the substance of the wealth, or it is its comparison with duties that are related to the substance of the property not with the liability of the person who is in possession of the wealth, as in the case of trustees and others. Those who considered the owners of wealth to be similar to the trustees said that if he sets it aside and it is lost there is nothing due from him. Those who considered them similar to debtors said that they are to compensate (for the loss). Those who made a distinction on the basis of negligence, and the absence of it, associated them with trustees from all aspects, as the trustee compensates (for the loss) in case of negligence. Those who maintained that if he was not negligent he is to pay zakat on the residue compared the person who had lost part of his wealth after setting aside zakat with one who had lost part of his wealth before the commencement of the obligation; just as that person pays zakat at the time of the obligation on what exists with him, this person will pay zakat on what exists with him. The reason for the disagreement arises from the variation in the association of the owner with a debtor, a trustee, a partner, and with one who has lost part of his wealth before the obligation.

Wannan ya shafi mutumin da ya mutu bayan fara wajibcin ibada ne • IQ?

This relates to the person who dies after the commencement of the obligation • IQ?

na zakka. Wasu malamai na shari'a sun ce ana fitar da ita daga babban kuɗinsa. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq, da Abu Thawr. Wata ƙungiya kuma ta ce ba a fitar da zakka sai dai idan ya bar wasiyya cewa a biya ta daga dukiyarsa. A wannan yanayi, a fitar da ita daga kashi na uku na dukiyar. In ba haka ba, babu abin da ake bin sa. Wasu daga cikin waɗannan malamai sun ce ana biya wa zakka fifiko idan ta kai kashi na uku ko ƙasa da haka, yayin da wasu suka ce ba a biya ta fifiko ba. Dukkan ra'ayoyin biyu an ruwaito su daga Malik, amma ra'ayin da aka fi sani shi ne cewa ana ɗaukar ta kamar wasiyya.

of zakat. A group of jurists said that it is to be taken out from his capital. This was the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr. Another group said that zakat is to be paid only if he leaves a testament to the effect that it is to be paid from his estate. In that case, it is to be taken out from the third of the estate. Otherwise nothing is due. Some of these jurists said that zakat is to be satisfied first if it is as much as the third or is less than that, while others said that it is not to be satisfied first. Both opinions are narrated from Malik, but the well-known opinion is that it is to be treated as a bequest.

Dangane da sabanin da suka yi game da dukiyar da ake sayarwa bayan zakka ta wajaba a kanta, wata ƙungiyar malamai sun ce mutumin da zakka ta wajaba a kansa (mai sayarwa) na iya cire zakkar daga cikin dukiyar kanta, kuma mai saye zai koma ga mai sayarwa don ya karɓi darajarta. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin Abu Thawr. Wata ƙungiyar malamai kuma sun ce ana soke cinikin, kuma wannan ita ce ra'ayin al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa ya ce mai saye yana da zaɓi tsakanin aiwatar da cinikin ko soke shi, kuma ana karɓar ushr daga 'ya'yan itacen ko hatsin da zakka ta wajaba a kansu. Malik ya ce mai sayarwa ne ke da alhakin biyan zakka.

With respect to their disagreement about wealth that is sold after zakat has become due on it, a group of jurists said that the person from whom zakat is due (the seller) may take the zakat from the wealth itself, and the buyer is to have recourse to the seller for its value. This was the opinion of Abu Thawr. Another group of jurists said that the sale is rescinded, and this was al-Shafic?s opinion. Abu HanTfa said that the buyer has an option between .the execution of the sale or its revocation, and the hishr is to be taken from the fruit or from the grain on which zakat was due. Malik said that the seller is liable for the payment of zakat.

Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga kwatanta sayar da dukiya da asararta da lalacewarta. Waɗanda suka ɗauki su biyu a matsayin iri ɗaya sun ce zakka tana kan mutumin da ya lalata dukiyar ko ya jawo asararta. Waɗanda suka tabbatar da cewa sayarwa ba ta kai ga lalata ainihin dukiyar ba, haka kuma ba ta kai ga asararta ba, sai dai sayarwa ce ta abin da ba nasa ba ne, sun ce zakka tana da alaƙa da ainihin dukiyar. Ko a soke sayarwar ko a'a, wannan magana ce daban da za a tattauna a babin cinikayya, in Allah Ya yarda. Sabaninsu game da zakka a kan dukiyar da aka mallakar da ita ta hanyar kyauta yana cikin irin wannan hali.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the comparison of the sale of the property with its loss and destruction. Those who considered them similar said that zakat is the liability of the person destroying the property or causing its loss. Those who maintained that sale does not amount to destruction of the substance of the wealth nor its loss, but amounts to sale by a person of what does not belong to him said that zakat is linked to the substance of the wealth. Whether the sale is to be rescinded is a separate discussion that will be taken up in the section on sales, God willing. Their dispute about zakat on wealth that has been alienated by a gift is of a similar nature.

A cikin wasu daga cikin al'amuran da muka ambata akwai cikakken bayani a cikin Makarantar da ba mu ga ya dace mu gabatar da shi a nan ba, domin hakan bai dace da manufarmu ba. Haka kuma, yana da wahala a bayar da dalilan wadannan banbance-banbance, domin yawancinsu an gina su ne a kan istihsan, kamar bayaninsu na cikakkun bayanai game da basussukan da ake biyan zakka a kansu da wadanda ba a biyan zakka a kansu, da basussukan da ke sa a soke zakka da wadanda ba sa soke ta. Saboda haka, abin da muka ga ya kamata a ambata a cikin wannan babi shi ne wanda ya shafi tantance mutumin da ake bin zakka a wurinsa, da sharuddan mallaka da ake wajabta zakka da su, da hukunce-hukuncen mutumin da ake bin zakka a wurinsa.