Walikubaliana juu ya baadhi ya aina za mali ambazo zakat ni wajibu kutolewa, na wakatofautiana juu ya nyingine. Aina walizokubaliana ni pamoja na aina mbili za madini, yaani dhahabu na fedha ambazo hazijatengenezwa kuwa mapambo, aina tatu za wanyama, yaani ngamia, ng'ombe na kondoo, aina mbili za nafaka, yaani ngano na shayiri, na aina mbili za matunda, yaani tende na zabibu kavu. Kuna mjadala fulani kuhusu mizeituni.

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.

Walitofautiana kuhusu dhahabu pekee pale inapokuwa katika umbo la mapambo. Hii ni kwa sababu wanazuoni wa fiqhi wa Hijaz, Malik, al-Layth, na al-Shafi'i, walishikilia kwamba hakuna zakat juu yake ikiwa imekusudiwa kwa mapambo na kuvaa. Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake walisema kwamba zakat inapaswa kutolewa juu yake. Sababu ya kutofautiana inatokana na mkanganyiko wake kati ya kuwa bidhaa na kuwa dhahabu na fedha ambazo hutumika hasa kama njia ya kubadilishana kwa vitu vyote vingine. Wale waliozichukulia kuwa sawa na bidhaa, ambazo lengo lake kuu ni matumizi, walisema kwamba hakuna zakat ndani yake (mapambo). Wale waliozichukulia kuwa sawa na dhahabu na fedha, ambazo lengo lake kuu ni kurahisisha kubadilishana, walisema kwamba inatozwa zakat. Pia kuna sababu nyingine ya kutofautiana kwao, nayo ni mgongano wa Hadith kuhusu suala hili. Imepokewa kutoka kwa Jabir kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ kwamba alisema: "Hakuna zakat katika mapambo." (Amr ibn Shu'ayb amepokea kutoka kwa baba yake, kutoka kwa babu yake, kwamba mwanamke mmoja alimjia Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akiwa pamoja na binti yake, aliyekuwa amevaa vikuku viwili vya dhahabu mikononi mwake. Akamwambia: "Je, unatoa zakat juu ya hivi?" Akajibu: "Hapana!" Akamwambia: "Je, itakufurahisha Allah akuvalishe mikononi mwako, Siku ya Kiyama, vikuku viwili vya moto?" Akavivua na kuviweka mbele ya Mtume ﷺ, akisema: "Ni vya Allah na Mjumbe wake.") Hadith zote mbili ni dhaifu, hasa Hadith ya 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.

Sababu nyingine kubwa ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na kuyumba kwa vito vilivyonunuliwa kwa ajili ya urembo, kati ya kuwa dhahabu na fedha, ambazo lengo lake kuu ni kurahisisha biashara na si matumizi, na kati ya kuwa bidhaa, ambazo lengo lake kuu ni kinyume cha dhahabu na fedha, yaani matumizi na si kurahisisha ubadilishanaji. Ninapomaanisha ubadilishanaji ni kuwepo kwake kama sarafu. Maoni ya Malik yalitofautiana kuhusu vito vilivyonunuliwa kwa ajili ya kukodisha. Mara moja alisema kuwa vinafanana na vito vilivyonunuliwa kwa urembo, na mara nyingine alisema kuwa vinafanana na madini ya dhahabu yanayotumika katika miamala.

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.

Tofauti yao kuhusu wanyama inajumuisha mzozo wao kuhusu aina na mzozo wao kuhusu makundi. Mzozo kuhusu aina unahusu farasi, kwani wengi wanashikilia kwamba hakuna zaka juu ya farasi. Abu Hanifa alishikilia kwamba ikiwa wanachungwa malishoni kwa uhuru na lengo lao ni kuzaliana, basi kuna zaka juu yao, yaani wanapokuwa dume na jike. Sababu ya mzozo huu inatokana na mgongano wa qiyas (kulinganisha) na maandiko, pamoja na kile kinachoaminika kuwa mgongano wa maandiko moja na jingine. Maandiko yanayoashiria kwamba hakuna zaka juu yao ni kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Hakuna sadaka (zaka) kwa Muislamu juu ya farasi wake wala mtumwa wake." Qiyas inayopingana na maana hii ya jumla ni kwamba lengo la kuwachunga farasi malishoni ni ukuaji na uzazi, ambao kwa sababu hiyo wanafanana na ng'ombe na kondoo. Maandiko yanayodhaniwa kupingana na maana hii ya jumla ni kauli ya Mtume ﷺ alipotaja farasi, na hakusahau haki ya Allah kwa farasi wenyewe [kama wanyama wanaostahili zaka], pamoja na ukuaji wao kama mali. Abu Hanifa alishikilia kwamba haki ya Allah hapa ina maana ya kulipa zaka juu yao, na hili linatumika kwa farasi wanaochungwa malishoni miongoni mwao. Qadhi (Ibn Rushd) alisema: "Ni bora maandiko haya yachukuliwe kuwa ni yasiyofafanuliwa (mujmal) badala ya kuwa ya jumla, ili yatumike kama hoja ya zaka." Abu Hanifa alipingwa na wanafunzi wake wawili, Abu Yusuf na Muhammad, katika suala hili. Hata hivyo, imethibitika kutoka kwa Umar, Allah amridhie, kwamba alikuwa akitathmini zaka juu yao. Kwa hiyo, inasemwa kwamba hili lilifanyika kama mchango wa hiari kutoka kwa wanaolipa.

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.

Tofauti yao kuhusu aina (za wanyama) inahusu kuchunga bure ngamia, ng'ombe na kondoo, kwa kulinganisha na wanyama wasiochungwa bure. Kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi liliwawekea zakat aina hizi tatu bila kujali kama ni wanyama wanaochungwa bure au wasiochungwa bure. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa kauli ya al-Layth na Malik. Wanazuoni wengine waliokuwa katika mikoa walishikilia kuwa hakuna zakat kwa wanyama wasiochungwa bure katika aina hizi tatu.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mgongano wa maana ya jumla isiyo na masharti (mutlaq) na maana yenye masharti (muqayyad), na mgongano wa kiasi (qiyas) na maana ya jumla ya maneno ('umum) ya matini. Maana isiyo na masharti iko katika kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Katika kondoo arobaini kuna kondoo mmoja" (zaka yake ni kondoo mmoja). Maana yenye masharti iko katika kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Kwa kondoo wanaochungwa kuna zaka". Wale waliopa kipaumbele maana isiyo na masharti kuliko yenye masharti walisema kwamba zaka ipo kwa kondoo wanaochungwa na wasiochungwa, huku wale waliopa kipaumbele maana yenye masharti walisema zaka inatozwa kwa wanyama wanaochungwa peke yao. Inawezekana pia kusema kwamba sababu ya kutofautiana inatokana na mgongano wa dalili ya kinyume (dalil al-khitab) na maana ya jumla. Dalili ya kinyume katika kauli ya Mtume ﷺ, "Kwa kondoo wanaochungwa kuna zaka", inaonyesha kwamba hakuna zaka kwa kondoo asiyechungwa, ilhali maana ya jumla katika kauli ya Mtume ﷺ, "Katika kondoo arobaini kuna kondoo mmoja", inaonyesha kwamba kondoo wanaochungwa wana hadhi sawa na wasiochungwa. Lakini maana ya jumla (kwa kanuni) ina nguvu zaidi kuliko dalili ya kinyume, kama vile kipaumbele cha maana yenye masharti juu ya maana isiyo na masharti kinavyojulikana zaidi. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, hata hivyo, alishikilia kwamba maana isiyo na masharti inatawala maana yenye masharti, na kwamba kwa kondoo, wanaochungwa au wasiochungwa, kuna zaka, vivyo hivyo kwa ngamia, kwa sababu ya kauli ya Mtume ﷺ, "Hakuna sadaka katika kilicho chini ya ngamia watano". Na kwa kuwa hakuna hadithi iliyothibitishwa kuhusu ng'ombe, ni lazima kutegemea makubaliano ya wanazuoni yanayosema kwamba zaka inatozwa kwa ng'ombe wanaochungwa peke yao. Hivyo, kwa kutenganisha ng'ombe na wengine, hili linakuwa mtazamo wa tatu.

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.

Qiyasi inayopingana na maana ya jumla ya hadith ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu zimshukie), "Katika kila kondoo arobaini yumo kondoo mmoja", inaonyesha kwamba mnyama wa malisho ndiye ambaye lengo lake ni ukuaji na faida, na hilo lipo hapa kwa kiwango cha juu zaidi. Zaidi ya hayo, zakat hutozwa juu ya mali ya ziada, na ziada hupatikana zaidi katika mali ya malisho (wanyama), na ndiyo sababu hawl (kupita kwa mwaka mmoja) imewekwa kwa ajili yake. Wale waliozuia maana ya jumla kwa qiyasi hii hawakutoza zakat kwa wanyama wengine isipokuwa wanyama wa malisho, lakini wale ambao hawakuzuia maana hiyo na wakaona kwamba maana ya jumla ni yenye nguvu zaidi, waliitoza kwa sawa katika makundi yote mawili.

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.

Hivyo ndivyo walivyotofautiana kuhusu wanyama wanaotozwa zaka. Walikubaliana kwa pamoja kwamba hakuna zaka juu ya kile kinachotokana na wanyama, isipokuwa asali, ambayo kuhusu hiyo walitofautiana. Wengi wao walishikilia kwamba hakuna zaka juu yake. Kundi la wanazuoni wa sheria walisema kwamba zaka inatozwa juu yake. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu kuthibitishwa kwa hadithi inayohusu jambo hili, nayo ni kauli ya Mtume (rehema na baraka za Mungu ziwe juu yake) ﷺ, "Kwa kila mizinga kumi, mzinga mmoja." Imepokewa na al-Tirmidhi na wengineo.

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.

Mazao (mimea) ambayo walitofautiana juu yake, baada ya makubaliano yao kuhusu makundi manne tuliyoyataja, yanahusu aina za mazao. Baadhi yao hawakuona zaka inapaswa kutolewa kwa kitu chochote isipokuwa makundi haya manne. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa maoni ya Ibn Abi Layla, Sufyan al-Thawri, na Ibn al-Mubarak. Baadhi yao walishikilia kwamba zaka inapaswa kutolewa kwa mmea wowote (zao lolote) unaoweza kuhifadhiwa kama chakula. Hii ndiyo maoni ya Malik na al-Shafi'i. Wengine walisema kwamba zaka inapaswa kutolewa kwa kila kinachozalishwa kutoka ardhini, isipokuwa nyasi, mbao, na mianzi. Hii ilikuwa maoni ya 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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kati ya wale waliozuia zakat kwenye aina zilizokubaliwa na wale waliopanua hadi chakula kinachoweza kuhifadhiwa, inahusiana na mzozo wao kuhusu kama zakat kwenye aina hizi nne ni mahsusi kwa dutu yake yenyewe au inatokana na sababu ya msingi inayowakilishwa nazo, nayo ni kwamba zinatumika kama chakula. Wale walioshikilia kwamba ni kwa ajili ya aina zenyewe waliizuia wajibu kwazo, na wale waliosema kwamba ni kwa sababu ya msingi kwamba ni chakula waliupanua wajibu kwa aina zote za chakula. Sababu ya kutofautiana kati ya wale waliozuia wajibu kwenye chakula na wale waliouongeza, kwa kila kitu kinachozalishwa kutoka ardhini, isipokuwa vile ambavyo kuna makubaliano juu yake, kama nyasi, kuni, na mwanzi, inatokana na mgongano wa kulinganisha (qiyas) na maandiko ya jumla. Maandiko yanayodokeza matumizi ya jumla ni kauli ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mungu ziwe juu yake) ﷺ, "Kuna ʿushr katika kilichonyweshwa kwa mvua, na katika kilichomwagiliwa kwa kopo kuna nusu ya ʿushr". Ma (ni nini), kama kiwakilishi cha uhusiano alladhi, kinadokeza ujumla. Maandiko mengine yanayodokeza maana ya jumla ni maneno ya Aliye Juu: "Yeye ndiye aliyeotesha bustani zenye vishada na zisizo na vishada, na mtende, na mimea ya ladha mbalimbali, na mzeituni na komamanga, zinazofanana na zisizofanana. Kuleni matunda yake yanapozaa, na lipeni haki yake siku ya kuvuna". Kulinganisha kunadokeza kwamba lengo la zakat ni kuondoa haja, na hili hufanyika kwa kawaida kupitia kile kilicho chakula. Wale waliozuia maana ya jumla kwa kulinganisha hiki waliondoa zakat kwenye kisicho chakula, lakini wale waliotoa nguvu zaidi kwa dalili ya jumla waliipanua kwenye kilicho kando yake, isipokuwa vitu vilivyotengwa kwa makubaliano.

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.

Wale waliokubaliana kuhusu chakula walitofautiana katika mambo fulani kwa kurejelea mzozo wao kuhusu kama mambo hayo yako katika kundi la chakula, na kama inawezekana kujenga kipimo cha kulinganisha juu ya kile walichokubaliana. Hili ni sawa na tofauti ya Malik na al-Shafi'i kuhusu mizeituni. Malik alishikilia wajibu wa zaka juu yake, wakati al-Shafi'i aliikataa katika maoni yake ya baadaye aliyoyatoa huko Misri. Sababu ya tofauti hiyo inatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu kama mizeituni ni chakula kinachoweza kuhifadhiwa. Ya aina hiyo hiyo ni tofauti ya wanafunzi wa Malik kuhusu wajibu wa zaka juu ya tini. Baadhi yao walishikilia kwamba zaka inapaswa kutolewa juu ya matunda lakini si juu ya mboga, na hii ndiyo maoni ya Ibn Habib, kwa sababu ya maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu: "Ndiye aliyeumba mabustani yenye miti ya kupandwa na isiyopandwa, na mitende, na mazao ya ladha mbalimbali, na mizeituni na komamanga, vinavyofanana na visivyofanana. Kuleni katika matunda yake yanapozaa, na toeni haki yake siku ya kuvuna".194 Wale waliotofautisha kati ya matunda na mizeituni kupitia tafsiri ya aya hiyo hawana msingi, isipokuwa msingi dhaifu sana.

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.

Walikubaliana kwamba hakuna zakka juu ya bidhaa (mali ya kumiliki, ikiwemo watumwa) ambazo hazikusudiwi kwa biashara, lakini walitofautiana kuhusu kuwekwa kwa zakka juu ya bidhaa zinazotumika katika biashara. Wanachuoni wa majimbo walishikilia kuwa ni wajibu, lakini Adh-Dhahiriyya walikataa. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu kuwekwa kwa zakka kwa njia ya qiyas (kulinganisha), na pia mzozo wao kuhusu usahihi wa hadith ya Samura bin Jundub, aliyesema: "Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alikuwa akituamuru kutoa zakka juu ya bidhaa tulizozijumuisha katika biashara." Pia imepokewa kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ kwamba alisema: "Toeni zakka ya ngano." Qiyas ambayo wengi walitegemea ni kwamba bidhaa zilizonunuliwa kwa ajili ya biashara lengo lake ni ukuaji, hivyo zinafanana na aina tatu ambazo zakka inatozwa kwa makubaliano, yaani mazao, mifugo, na dhahabu na fedha. Al-Tahawi aliamini kwamba zakka juu ya bidhaa imethibitishwa kutoka kwa Umar na kutoka kwa Ibn Umar, na hakuna Maswahaba yeyote aliyepinga. Baadhi walidhani kwamba hali kama hii ni sawa na ijma' ya Maswahaba, yaani pale maoni yanapopokewa kutoka kwa mmoja wao, na hakuna kilichopokewa kutoka kwa Maswahaba mwingine kinachoyapinga, lakini hili ni dhaifu.

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.