Esta questão trata do ḥawl dos acréscimos (fawā'id). Concordaram que, se a riqueza for inferior ao niṣāb e algum acréscimo que não seja lucro chegar ao proprietário, completando assim o niṣāb, então o ḥawl deve começar de forma independente para o total a partir do dia em que o acréscimo foi recebido. Divergiram quanto ao momento em que o acréscimo chega até ele quando ele já possui uma riqueza igual ao niṣāb, sobre a qual o ḥawl já está completo. Mālik disse que o acréscimo deve pagar zakat segundo o seu próprio ḥawl, caso atinja o niṣāb, e que não deve ser somado à riqueza sobre a qual a zakat já é devida. A mesma opinião sobre os acréscimos é expressa por al-Shāfi'ī. Abū Ḥanīfa, seus discípulos e al-Thawrī disseram que todos os acréscimos devem ser sujeitos à zakat com base no ḥawl do capital, caso este atinja o niṣāb. O mesmo vale para o lucro, na opinião deles.
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 the wealth to which it was added, 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, which 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 of the words of the Prophet ﷺ, "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 Hanifa 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.
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.
É evidente que o hawl, estipulado para a zakat sobre a riqueza, refere-se a uma determinada riqueza, independentemente do aumento ou da diminuição dela, seja por lucro, seja por acréscimos ou por qualquer outra razão, pois a finalidade do hawl é garantir que a riqueza seja um excedente que está além das necessidades (normais). Isso se baseia na suposição de que aquilo que permaneceu durante todo o hawl sem alteração deve estar além das necessidades do proprietário. Por essa razão, a zakat foi imposta sobre ela, e a zakat só é imposta sobre a riqueza excedente. Para aqueles que sustentam que a estipulação do hawl serve para determinar o crescimento da riqueza, torna-se obrigatório dizer que os ganhos, além do lucro, devem ser somados ao capital, e que a completude do nisab deve ser levada em conta em ambas as extremidades do hawl. Reflita sobre isso, pois é evidente, e Allah sabe melhor. Foi por essa razão que Malik sustentou a opinião de que, se uma pessoa possuía gado sujeito à zakat no início do hawl, e depois o vendeu e substituiu-o, no fim do hawl, por outro gado da mesma espécie, a zakat seria cobrada sobre esse novo gado. Parece que ele também levou em conta ambas as extremidades do hawl, de acordo com a opinião de Abu Hanifa. Adotou também a analogia, empregada por Abu Hanifa, referente aos acréscimos de bens líquidos em relação ao gado, como já foi mencionado.
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.