Eles concordaram quanto a algumas das categorias em que o zakat é obrigatório e discordaram quanto a outras. As categorias em que concordaram incluem dois tipos de minerais, a saber, o ouro e a prata que não tenham sido moldados em joias; três categorias de animais, a saber, camelos, vacas e ovelhas; duas categorias de grãos, a saber, trigo e cevada; e duas categorias de frutas, a saber, tâmaras e uvas passas. Há alguma disputa quanto às azeitonas.

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.

Eles discordaram sobre o ouro apenas quando ele está na forma de joias. Isso porque os juristas de Hijaz, Malik, al-Layth e al-Shafi'i sustentaram que não há zakat sobre ele se for destinado à ornamentação e ao uso. Abu Hanifa e seus discípulos disseram que o zakat deve ser cobrado sobre ele. A razão da divergência decorre de sua oscilação entre ser mercadoria e ser ouro e prata que são usados primariamente como meio de troca por todas as outras coisas. Aqueles que o consideraram semelhante a mercadorias, cuja finalidade primária é a utilidade, disseram que não há zakat nele (nas joias). Aqueles que o consideraram semelhante ao ouro e à prata, cuja finalidade primária é facilitar a troca, disseram que ele está sujeito ao zakat. Há também outra razão para a divergência deles, que é o conflito de tradições sobre o assunto. Foi relatado por Jabir, do Profeta ﷺ, que ele disse: "Não há zakat nas joias". (Amr ibn Shu'ayb relatou de seu pai, de seu avô, que "uma mulher foi até o Mensageiro de Allah ﷺ acompanhada de sua filha, que usava (duas) pulseiras de ouro nas mãos. Ele lhe disse: 'Você paga zakat sobre estas?' Ela disse: 'Não!' Ele disse: 'Agradaria a você se Allah colocasse em suas mãos, no Dia do Juízo, duas pulseiras de fogo?' Ela as tirou, colocou-as diante do Profeta ﷺ e disse: 'Elas são para Allah e Seu Mensageiro'".) Ambas as tradições são fracas, particularmente a tradição de Jabir.

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.

Outra razão importante para a divergência deles decorre da oscilação das joias adquiridas para adorno entre serem ouro e prata, cuja finalidade primordial é facilitar o comércio e não a utilidade, e entre serem bens, cuja finalidade primordial é o oposto do ouro e da prata, isto é, o uso e não a facilitação da troca. Por troca entendo a sua existência como moedas. A opinião de Malik diferiu quanto às joias adquiridas para aluguel. Ele sustentou, em certa ocasião, que elas se assemelham às joias adquiridas para adorno, e em outra ocasião sustentou que se assemelham ao ouro em barras utilizado nas transações.

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 on horses. Abu Hanifa maintained that if they graze 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 ﷺ, "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 grazing 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 ﷺ 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 grazing 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 Umar, 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 payers.

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.

A divergência deles sobre as categorias (de animais) diz respeito a pastorear livremente camelos, vacas e ovelhas, em contraste com os animais que não pastam. Um grupo de juristas impôs o zakat sobre essas três categorias, independentemente de serem animais que pastam ou que não pastam. Essa foi a opinião de al-Layth e de Malik. Os demais juristas das províncias sustentaram que não há zakat sobre os animais que não pastam nessas três categorias.

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.

A razão da divergência provém do conflito entre um sentido absoluto e um sentido qualificado, e do conflito entre a analogia e a implicação geral de um texto. O sentido absoluto está no dito do Profeta (que a paz e as bênçãos de Deus estejam com ele ﷺ): "Em quarenta ovelhas há uma ovelha [como zakat]". O sentido qualificado está no dito do Profeta ﷺ: "Sobre as ovelhas que pastam há zakat". Aqueles que deram preferência à implicação absoluta sobre a qualificada disseram que há zakat tanto nos animais que pastam quanto nos que não pastam, enquanto aqueles que deram preferência ao sentido qualificado disseram que o zakat incide somente sobre os animais que pastam. Pode-se dizer também que a razão da divergência decorre do conflito entre a indicação indireta do texto (dalil al-khitab) e a implicação geral. A indicação indireta do texto no dito do Profeta ﷺ: "Sobre as ovelhas que pastam há zakat", implica que não há zakat sobre a ovelha que não pasta, enquanto o sentido geral no dito do Profeta ﷺ: "Em quarenta ovelhas há uma ovelha", implica que as ovelhas que pastam têm o mesmo estatuto que as que não pastam; mas o sentido geral (como regra) é mais forte do que a indicação indireta do texto, assim como a precedência do sentido qualificado sobre o sentido absoluto é mais conhecida. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, contudo, sustentou que o sentido absoluto prevalece sobre o qualificado, e que sobre as ovelhas, quer pastem quer não pastem, há zakat, assim como sobre os camelos, por causa do dito do Profeta ﷺ: "Não há sadaqa sobre o que for menos de cinco camelos". E como não há tradição estabelecida sobre as vacas, é necessário apoiar-se no consenso, que afirma que o zakat incide somente sobre as vacas que pastam. Assim, com a distinção das vacas em relação aos demais animais, isto torna-se uma terceira opinião.

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.

A analogia que está em conflito com a implicação geral do dito do Profeta (que a paz e as bênçãos de Deus estejam sobre ele), "Em quarenta ovelhas há uma ovelha", implica que é o animal de pastoreio cuja finalidade é o crescimento e o lucro, que está presente aqui ao máximo. Além disso, a zakat é cobrada sobre a riqueza excedente, e o excedente costuma ser encontrado na riqueza de pastoreio (animais), sendo por isso que foi prescrito o hawl (a passagem de um ano) para ela. Aqueles que restringiram o sentido geral com essa analogia não impuseram zakat sobre animais que não são de pastoreio, mas aqueles que não a restringiram e sustentaram que o sentido geral é mais forte impuseram-na igualmente sobre ambas as categorias.

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.

Isto, portanto, é o que eles divergiram quanto aos animais sobre os quais incide a zakat. Concordaram unanimemente que não há zakat sobre o que é derivado dos animais, exceto no caso do mel, sobre o qual divergiram. A maioria sustentou que não há zakat sobre ele. Um grupo de juristas disse que a zakat incide sobre ele. A razão para a divergência deles deriva de sua disputa quanto à autenticação da tradição sobre este assunto, que é o dito do Profeta ﷺ: "Para cada dez cestos, um cesto". Foi registrada por al-Tirmidhi e outros.

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.

As culturas (vegetação) sobre as quais discordaram, após o seu acordo quanto às quatro categorias que mencionamos, dizem respeito às espécies de cultivo. Alguns deles não defendiam a zakat sobre nada além dessas quatro categorias. Esta foi a opinião de Ibn Abi Layla, Sufyan al-Thawri e Ibn al-Mubarak. Outros sustentavam que a zakat deve ser cobrada sobre qualquer vegetação (cultivo) que possa ser armazenada como alimento. Esta é a opinião de Malik e al-Shafi‘i. Outros disseram que a zakat deve ser cobrada sobre tudo o que é produzido da terra, exceto a erva, a madeira e a cana. Esta foi a opinião de Abu Hanifa.

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.

A divergência entre os que restringiram o zakat às categorias consensuais e os que o estenderam aos alimentos armazenáveis está ligada à sua disputa sobre se o zakat sobre essas quatro categorias é específico à sua substância ou se é devido a uma causa subjacente que elas representam, a saber, que são usadas como alimento. Aqueles que sustentaram que é por causa das próprias categorias restringiram a obrigação a elas, e aqueles que disseram que é por causa da causa subjacente de serem alimento estenderam a obrigação a todo tipo de alimento. A divergência entre os que restringiram a obrigação ao alimento e os que a estenderam a tudo o que é produzido da terra, exceto aqueles sobre os quais há consenso, como a erva, a madeira e o caniço, baseia-se no conflito entre a analogia e um texto geral. O texto que implica uma aplicação geral é a palavra do Profeta ﷺ: "Há ʿushr no que é irrigado pela chuva, mas naquilo que é irrigado com a roda d'água há meio ʿushr". Mā (o que), um pronome relativo como o termo alladhī, implica generalidade. Outro texto que implica o sentido geral são as palavras do Altíssimo: "Foi Ele Quem criou jardins com e sem latadas, a tamareira, as plantações de sabores variados, a oliveira e a romãzeira, semelhantes e dessemelhantes. Comei de seus frutos quando frutificarem e pagai o seu direito no dia da colheita". A analogia implica que o propósito do zakat é a eliminação da necessidade, e isso geralmente se realiza por meio daquilo que é alimento. Aqueles que restringiram o sentido geral com essa analogia dispensaram o zakat sobre o que não é alimento, mas aqueles que deram preferência à implicação geral estenderam-no ao que está além dele, exceto as coisas excluídas por consenso.

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.

Aqueles que concordaram quanto ao alimento divergiram sobre certas coisas no que diz respeito à sua disputa sobre se estas se enquadram na categoria de alimento, e se a analogia pode ser construída sobre aquilo em que se concordou. Isto é semelhante à divergência de Malik e al-Shafi'i sobre as azeitonas. Malik sustentou a obrigatoriedade da zakat sobre elas, enquanto al-Shafi'i a rejeitou em sua opinião posterior, emitida no Egito. A razão da divergência baseia-se na disputa sobre se as azeitonas são um alimento armazenável. Da mesma natureza é a divergência entre os discípulos de Malik sobre a obrigatoriedade da zakat sobre os figos. Alguns deles sustentaram que a zakat deve ser cobrada sobre as frutas, mas não sobre os legumes, e esta é a opinião de Ibn Habib, por causa das palavras do Altíssimo: {Ele é Quem criou jardins com latadas e sem latadas, a tamareira, as plantações de variados sabores, a oliveira e a romãzeira, semelhantes e diferentes. Comei de seus frutos quando frutificarem e pagai o seu direito no dia da colheita}. Aqueles que distinguiram entre frutas e azeitonas, por meio da interpretação do versículo, não têm fundamento, a não ser um fundamento muito fraco.

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.

Eles concordaram que não há zakat sobre os bens (o gado, incluindo os escravos) que não são destinados ao comércio, mas divergiram quanto à imposição de zakat sobre os bens empregados no comércio. Os juristas das províncias sustentaram a obrigação dela, mas os Zahiritas a negaram. A razão de sua divergência decorre de sua disputa sobre a imposição da zakat por meio de analogia, e também de sua disputa sobre a autenticidade da tradição de Samura ibn Jundub, que disse: "O Mensageiro de Allah ﷺ costumava ordenar-nos que separássemos zakat sobre os bens que incluíamos no comércio". Também é relatado do Profeta ﷺ que ele disse: "Pagai zakat sobre o trigo". A analogia em que a maioria se apoiou é que os bens adquiridos para o comércio têm o crescimento como finalidade e, portanto, assemelham-se às três espécies sobre as quais a zakat é cobrada por consenso, isto é, as colheitas, o gado e o ouro e a prata. Al-Tahawi acreditava que a zakat sobre os bens é estabelecida a partir de Umar e de Ibn Umar, e nenhum dos Companheiros se opôs a eles. Alguns pensaram que tal situação equivale a um consenso dos Companheiros, isto é, quando uma opinião é transmitida de um deles e nada é transmitido de outro Companheiro contra ela, mas isso é fraco.

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.