Wengi wanaona kwamba wajibu wa zaka juu ya dhahabu, fedha na mifugo unategemea kupita kwa hawl (mwaka), kwa sababu hili limethibitishwa kutoka kwa makhalifa wanne, lilijulikana sana miongoni mwa Maswahaba, lilifanyiwa kazi sana, na kwa sababu wanaamini kwamba kuwa jambo lililojulikana na kutendwa kwa kiwango hicho bila kupingwa hakuwezekani, isipokuwa kulikuwa na mtangulizi kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ. Imepokewa kutoka kwa Ibn Umar, kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ (rehema na baraka za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake), katika hadithi ya marfūʿ, kwamba alisema: "Hakuna zaka juu ya mali isipokuwa mwaka mmoja (hawl) umepita juu yake." Hili wamelikubali kwa pamoja wanazuoni wa fiqhi wa miji mbalimbali. Hakuna mgongano kuhusu hili katika kizazi cha kwanza, isipokuwa kilichopokewa kutoka kwa Ibn Abbas na Muawiya. Sababu ya mgongano ni kwamba hakuna hadithi iliyothibitika kuhusu jambo hili. Katika mada hii walitofautiana katika masuala manane maarufu. Suala la kwanza ni kama hawl inapaswa kuwekwa kwa madini, ikiwa tunashikilia kwamba kiasi kinachotakiwa juu yake ni robo ya sehemu ya kumi. La pili, kuzingatiwa kwa hawl katika faida za mtaji. La tatu, kupita kwa hawl juu ya ongezeko la vitu vinavyotozwa zaka. La nne, kuzingatiwa kwa kupita kwa hawl juu ya mikopo, ikiwa tunashikilia kwamba zaka inatozwa juu yake. La tano, kuzingatiwa kwa hawl kwa bidhaa za biashara, ikiwa tunashikilia kwamba kuna zaka juu yake. La sita, hawl juu ya faida zinazopatikana kutoka kwa mifugo. La saba, hawl juu ya watoto wa kondoo, ikiwa tunashikilia kwamba wanaongezwa kwa mama zao, ama kwa mujibu wa maoni ya wale wanaosharti kwamba mama wakamilishe nisabu, nao ni al-Shafiʿi na Abu Hanifa, au kwa mujibu wa maoni ya wale wasiosharti hilo, ambalo ni maoni ya Malik. La nane, ruhusa ya kutenga zaka kabla ya hawl.

The majority stipulates for the obligation of zakat on gold, silver, and cattle, the passage of the hawl, because this is established from the four caliphs, was known widely among, the Companions, was practised widely, and because of their belief that its being so widely known and practised without any opposition is not possible, unless there was an earlier precedent (from the Prophet). It is related from Ibn TJmar from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in a (marfiF) tradition that he. said, “There is no zakat on wealth unless one hawl (year) has passed over it”. This is agreed to unanimously by the jurists of the provinces. There is no disagreement about it in the first generation, except what is related from Ibn Abbas and Mu^awiya.- c The reason for the disagreement is that there is no established tradition about it. In this topic they disagreed about eight well-known issues. The first issue is whether a hawl is to be stipulated for minerals, if we maintain that the amount due on them is one-fourth of a tenth. Second, the consideration of a hawl in the case of profits on capital. Third, the passage of a hawl on the additions to things that are liable to zakat. Fourth, the consideration of the passage of a hawl on loans, if we maintain that zakat is levied on them. Fifth, the consideration of a hawl for goods, if we maintain that there is zakat on them. Sixth, the hawl on the benefits derived from cattle. Seventh, the hawl on the offspring of sheep, if we maintain that they are to be added to the mothers, either according to the opinion of those who stipulate that the mothers should complete the nisab, and these are al-ShaficT and Abu HanTfa, or according to the opinion of those who do not stipulate this, which is Malik’s opinion. Eighth, the permissibility of setting aside zakat prior to the hawl.

Suala hili linahusu madini. Al-Shafi'i alizingatia hawl pamoja na nisab katika madini, wakati Malik alizingatia nisab lakini hakuzingatia hawl.

This issue relates to minerals. Al-Shafi T took into account c the hawl as well as the nisab in minerals, while Malik took into account the nisab, but not the hawl.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na kuyumbayumba kwa mfanano wake kati ya kile kinachotolewa kutoka ardhini na kati ya dhahabu na fedha zinazomilikiwa. Wale waliodhani kwamba ni sawa na kile kinachotolewa kutoka ardhini hawakuweka sharti la AaW kwao, huku wale waliodhani kwamba ni sawa na dhahabu na fedha wakaweka sharti la hawl. Mfanano wake na dhahabu na fedha ni wa wazi zaidi, na Allah ndiye Mjuzi zaidi.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the vacillation of their resemblance between what is derived from the land and between owned gold and silver. Those who held them to be similar to what is derived from the land did not stipulate a AaW for them, while those who held them to be similar to gold and silver stipulated the hawl. The resemblance with gold and silver is clearer, Allah knows best.

Fuqahaa walitofautiana kuhusu hawl ya faida itokanayo na mtaji, na walikuwa na maoni matatu. Al-Shaafi'i alisema kuwa hawl yake huhesabiwa kuanzia siku faida inapopatikana, bila kujali kama mtaji wenyewe unafikia nisab. Hili limepokewa kutoka kwa 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, aliyetoa agizo kwamba faida za biashara zisitozwe zakat mpaka hawl ipite. Malik alisema kuwa hawl ya faida inalingana na hawl ya mtaji. Yaani, mwaka unapopita kwa mtaji, faida nayo inakuwa chini ya zakat kwa wakati uo huo, iwe mtaji wenyewe unafikia nisab peke yake au unafikia nisab kwa kuongezwa faida. Abu 'Ubayd alisema kuwa maoni haya hayakufuatwa na mmoja wa fuqahaa wengine, isipokuwa wanafunzi wake mwenyewe. Kundi moja la fuqahaa lilifanya tofauti kulingana na kama mtaji unaopitiwa na hawl unafikia nisab. Walisema kwamba ikiwa unafikia nisab peke yake, faida inakuwa chini ya zakat pamoja nao. Lakini ikiwa haufikii nisab, zakat haitozwi juu yake, hata kama unafikia nisab kwa kuongezwa faida. Wanaoshikilia maoni haya ni pamoja na al-Awzaa'i, Abu Thawr, na Abu Haniifa. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na kuyumba kwa faida kati ya hukmu ya mali inayopatikana kama manufaa na hukmu ya mtaji. Wale waliolifanya sawa na manufaa yanayojitokeza walisema kwamba lazima lipitie hawl kivyake. Wale waliolifanya sawa na mtaji walisema kwamba linachukua hukmu ya mtaji, isipokuwa kwamba mojawapo ya masharti ya kulinganisha huku ni kwamba zakat iwe ni wajibu juu ya mtaji, na hilo halitokei isipokuwa mtaji ufikie nisab. Kwa sababu hiyo, kulinganisha faida na mtaji kunachukuliwa kuwa dhaifu katika madhehebu ya Malik. Inaonekana kwamba alichokitegemea Malik (Mwenyezi Mungu amridhie) ni ufanano baina ya faida itokanayo na mtaji na watoto wa kondoo, lakini kisa cha watoto wa kondoo nacho kina mjadala. Maoni kama ya wengi pia yamepokewa kutoka kwa Malik.

The jurists disagreed about the hawl for profit on capital holding three opinions. Al-ShafiT held that its hawl is to be calculated from the day it accrues, irrespective of the capital itself amounting to the nisab. This is related from QJmar ibn <Abd al-cAzIz, who gave the instructions that the profits from trade should not be liable for zakat until a hawl has passed. Malik said that the hawl of the profits corresponds with the hawl of the capital, that is, when the year has passed for the capital the profit becomes subject to zakat at the same time, whether the principal amounts to a nisab on its own or reaches the nisab by adding the profits to it. Abu TJbayd said that this was not followed by any of the other jurists, except his own disciples. One group of jurists made the distinction of whether the capital undergoing the hawl amounts to a nisab. They said that if it does amount to the nisab on its own the profit becomes subject to zakat along with it, but if it does not amount to the nisab, zakat is not levied on it (even if it amounts to the nisab by the addition of profits to it). Those who held this opinion include al-AwzacT, Abu Thawr, and Abu HanTfa. The reason for their disagreement arises from the vacillation of profit between the hukm of wealth derived as a benefit and the hukm of the capital. Those who held it to. be similar to an accruing benefit said that it has to independently undergo a hawl, while those who held it to be similar to capital said that it takes the hukm of the capital, except that one of the conditions of such comparison is that zakat should be due on the capital, and this does not happen unless it amounts to the nisab. It is for this reason that the analogy for profit over capital is considered weak in Malik’s school. It appears that what Malik (God be pleased with him) relied upon is the similarity between profit from capital and the offspring of sheep, but the case of the offspring of sheep is also disputed. An opinion like that of the majority is also related from Malik.

Suala hili linahusu hawl ya nyongeza (fawaid)™ Walikubaliana kwamba ikiwa mali ni pungufu ya nisab, kisha nyongeza nyingine isiyokuwa faida ikamfikia mmiliki na kwa hiyo kukamilisha nisab, basi hawl itaanza kwa kujitegemea kwa jumla ya mali kuanzia siku nyongeza hiyo ilipopatikana. Walitofautiana pale nyongeza inapomfikia mtu ambaye tayari ana mali inayolingana na nisab, ambayo hawl yake imekamilika. Malik alisema kwamba nyongeza hiyo itatozwa zakat kulingana na hawl yake yenyewe, ikiwa inafikia nisab, na haitaongezwa kwenye mali ambayo zakat yake sasa inapaswa kutolewa. Maoni hayo hayo kuhusu nyongeza yanatolewa na al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa, wanafunzi wake, na al-Thawri walisema kwamba nyongeza zote zitatozwa zakat kwa msingi wa hawl ya mtaji, ikiwa mtaji huo unafikia nisab. Hali hiyo hiyo inatumika kwa faida, kwa mujibu wa maoni yao.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kama nyongeza mpya inachukua hukumu ya mali ambayo nyongeza hiyo imetokea juu yake, au inachukua hukumu ya mali ambayo haikuongezeka juu ya mali nyingine. Wale walioshikilia kwamba hukumu yake ni hukumu ya mali ya asili inayojitegemea, yaani mali ambayo zakat inawajibika juu yake, walisema kwamba hakuna zakat juu ya nyongeza hiyo. Wale waliopitisha kwake hukumu ya mali ambayo zakat inawajibika juu yake, na wanaoiona kuwa ni mali ile ile kwa sababu zakat inawajibika juu ya mali hii kwa kuwa inafikia nisab, walizingatia hawl yake kulingana na hawl ya mali ambayo zakat inawajibika juu yake. Maana ya jumla katika maneno ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) ﷺ, "Hakuna zakat juu ya mali isipokuwa hawl moja imepita juu yake", inaonyesha kwamba mali mpya iliyopatikana haipaswi kuongezwa kwenye mali iliyopo mikononi isipokuwa kwa msingi wa ushahidi. Inaonekana kwamba Abu Hanifa alitegemea katika hili kipimo cha mali za fedha juu ya ngamia. Mojawapo ya kanuni zake, ambayo anaitegemea katika mada hii, ni kwamba si sharti la hawl kwamba sehemu zote za mali ziwe na nisab mwaka mzima, bali inatosha nisab kupatikana mwishoni mwa mwaka wote wawili, na hawl iwepo katika baadhi ya sehemu za mali. Hivyo, kwa mtazamo wake, ikiwa mali ilifikia nisab mwanzoni mwa hawl kisha sehemu zake zikapotea au kuharibika na kuifanya iwe chini ya nisab, lakini mwishoni mwa hawl kukawa na nyongeza zilizoikamilisha nisab, zakat itatozwa juu yake. Hali hii kwake ipo katika aina hii ya mali kwa kuwa hawl bado haijakamilika; kwa asili ni mali ile ile katika sehemu zake zote; kwa kweli ni zaidi, lakini ilikuwa imepoteza nisab katika hatua tofauti za hawl.

Suala hili linahusu kuzingatia hawl kwa mikopo (inayotolewa kwa wengine), 202 ikiwa tunashikilia kuwa zakat inatozwa juu yake. Kundi la wanazuoni walisema kwamba hawl inapaswa kuzingatiwa kwake tangu wakati wa kuanza kwake (kama mkopo), zakat ikitozwa juu yake kwa muda wote wa kubaki. Ikiwa imeenea juu ya hawl moja, basi ni kwa hawl moja, lakini ikiwa imeenea juu ya hawl kadhaa, basi ni kwa idadi hiyo ya hawl. Hii ina maana kwamba ikiwa ni hawl moja, zakat moja tu inatozwa, lakini ikiwa imeenea kwa miaka kadhaa, zakat inatozwa kwa idadi hiyo ya miaka. Kundi lingine la wanazuoni lilisema kwamba inapaswa kutozwa zakat kwa mwaka mmoja tu, hata kama mkopo unabaki bila kulipwa kwa miaka kadhaa kwa mtu anayedaiwa deni. Kundi jingine la wanazuoni lilisema kwamba hawl inacheleweshwa kwa sababu ya deni. Wale waliosema kwamba hawl inacheleweshwa kwa sababu ya deni tangu siku ya kutolewa kwa mkopo hawakukubali kutozwa zakat juu ya mkopo, wakati wale waliodai kwamba zakat inapaswa kutozwa juu yake kwa idadi ya miaka ambayo ilibaki bila kulipwa walitoa uamuzi wao kwa msingi wa mfanano wa mkopo na mali iliyo mkononi. Kwa wale waliosema kwamba zakat inapaswa kutozwa juu yake kwa mwaka mmoja tu hata kama inabaki bila kulipwa kwa miaka kadhaa, sijui hoja yao kwa sasa, kwa sababu mradi bado ni mkopo wanaweza kusema zakat inatozwa juu yake au wanaweza kusema haitozwi. Ikiwa watasema hakuna zakat juu yake, basi hakuna haja ya kujadili zaidi; badala yake tunaanza upya. Ikiwa kuna zakat juu yake, basi hawl either imewekwa kwake au haijawekwa. Ikiwa tunaiweka, inakuwa wajibu kuzingatia idadi ya miaka, isipokuwa ikisemwa kwamba kila wakati hawl inapotimia na yeye hawezi kulipa zakat kwake (kwa sababu ya kutolipwa na mdaiwa), haki hii ya lazima dhidi yake inaondolewa kwa mwaka huo. Kwa kuwa zakat inawajibishwa kwa masharti mawili, kuwepo kwa mali yenyewe na kutimia kwa hawl, basi katika hali hii ni zakat ya mwaka wa mwisho pekee inayobaki. Hili linashikiliwa na Malik kuwa linafanana na bidhaa zilizopatikana kwa ajili ya biashara. Kwa mtazamo wake, zakat haiwekwi juu yake mpaka mtu huyo auze bidhaa hizo, hata kama zimebaki kwake kwa miaka kadhaa.

This issue deals with the consideration of the hawl for loans (given to others),202 if we maintain that zakat is levied upon them. A group of jurists said that the hawl is to be considered for it from the time of its commencement (as a loan) imposing zakat on it for its duration. If it is spread over one hawl, then, it is for one hawl, but if it is spread over a number of hawls, then, it is for such a number of hawls. This means that if it is a single hawl a single levy of zakat is imposed, but if it is spread over several years the zakat is levied for such number of years. A group of jurists said that it is to be subjected to zakat for a single year, even if the loan stays outstanding for a number of years with the person who owes the debt. A group of jurists said that the hawl is to be postponed because of it. Those who said that the hawl is to be postponed because of the debt from the day the loan was made, did not uphold the imposition of zakat on a loan, while those who maintained that zakat is to be levied upon it for the number of years it stayed outstanding decided on the basis of the resemblance of a loan with wealth in hand. For those who said that zakat is to be levied on it for a single year even if it stays outstanding for a number of years, I do not know of their reliance at the present moment, because as long as it remains a loan they may either say that zakat is levied on it or they may say that it is not, and if they say that there is no zakat on it then there is no point in discussing it; rather we start all over again. If there is zakat on it, then, the hawl is either stipulated for it or it is not. If we stipulate it, it becomes obligatory to take into account the number of years, unless it is said that each time the hawl is completed and he is not able to pay zakat for it (due to non-payment by the debtor), this obligatory right against him is dropped for that year. As zakat is imposed with two conditions, the presence of the substance of the wealth and the completion of the hawl, then in this case only the zakat due for the last year remains. This is held to by Malik to be similar to goods acquired for trade. In his view, zakat is not to be imposed on them until the person sells them off, even if they remained with him for a number of years.

Hii inahusu hawl kwa bidhaa za biashara, na mjadala wake umetangulia chini ya mada ya nisab kwa bidhaa.

This relates to the hawl for goods and its discussion has preceded under the topic of the nisab for goods.

Suala hili linahusu faida (ongezeko) katika mifugo. Maoni ya Malik katika jambo hili ni kinyume cha maoni yake katika kesi ya mali ya fedha (mali zinazotoka kwa fedha). Sababu ni kwamba yeye anaziweka faida kwenye mtaji, ikiwa mtaji huo unafikia nisabi, kama vile Abu Hanifa anavyofanya katika kesi za dirhamu na faida katika mifugo. Maoni ya Abu Hanifa kuhusu faida ni kwamba kuna hukmu moja ya pamoja, yaani, faida inategemea mtaji ikiwa unafikia nisabi, iwe faida ni katika kondoo au katika mali ya fedha. Faida na ongezeko la watoto (wanyama), kwa mtazamo wake, ni sawa na faida. Kwa Malik, faida na ongezeko la watoto vina hukmu moja ya pamoja, lakini yeye anatofautisha kati ya faida katika mali ya fedha na zile za mifugo. Kwa al-Shafi'i, faida na ongezeko vina hukmu moja ya pamoja kupitia kuzingatia hawl (mwaka) yake huru, na pia faida katika mifugo na watoto vina hukmu moja ya pamoja kupitia kuzingatia hawl yao pamoja na mtaji, ikiwa huo unafikia nisabi.

This issue relates to gains in cattle. The opinion of Malik in this case is the opposite of what it is in the case of liquid assets. The reason is that he bases the gains oh the capital,203 204 if that capital amounts to a nisab, just as Abu Harnfa does it in the cases of dirhams and gains in cattle. Abu Hamfa’s opinion on gains is that there is a common hukm, that is, it is based upon the capital if it amounts to a nisab, whether the gain is in sheep or in liquid assets. The profits and increase in offspring, in his view, are like gains. For Malik profits and offspring have a common hukm, but he distinguishes between the gains in liquid assets and those in cattle. For al-ShafiT profits and gains have a common hukm through the consideration of an independent hawl for them, and also the gains in cattle and offspring have a common hukm through the consideration of their hawl along with the capital if that amounts to the nisab.

Huu ni muhtasari wa maoni ya wanazuoni hawa watatu (wakuu). Inaonekana kwamba Malik alitofautisha kati ya mifugo na mali ya fedha kwa kumfuata ^tJmar, vinginevyo qiyas ni ile ile kwa kesi zote mbili, yaani faida inafanana na ukuaji wa watoto (wa mifugo), na faida ya mtaji inafanana na faida ya bidhaa. Hadith ya ^tJmar hapa ni kwamba aliwaamuru wahesabu wana-kondoo wadogo (katika nisab), lakini wasichukue chochote kutoka kwao kama zakat. Hadith hii imetangulia katika sehemu ya nisab.

This is the summary of the opinions of these three (leading) jurists. It appears that Malik distinguished between cattle and liquid assets following ^tJmar, otherwise the analogy is the same for both cases, that is, profit being similar to (a growth in) offspring and gains (on capital) being similar to gains (in stock). The tradition of TJmar here is that he ordered them to count the young lambs (in the nisab), but not to take anything from them as zakat. The tradition has preceded in the section on nisab.

Suala hili linahusu kuzingatiwa kwa hawl katika kesi ya watoto wa kondoo. Malik alisema kuwa ni hawl ile ile inayotumika kwa mama zao, bila kujali kama mama hao wanafikia nisab, kama alivyokuwa na maoni yake kuhusu faida katika mali ya fedha taslimu. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa na Abu Thawr walishikilia kuwa hawl ya watoto si sawa na ile ya mama zao, isipokuwa mama hao wafikie nisab. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni sababu ile ile waliyotofautiana nayo kuhusu faida.

This issue is about the consideration of a hawl in the case of the offspring of sheep. Malik said that it is the same hawl that applies to the mothers, irrespective of their constituting a nisab, as was his opinion about profits on liquid assets. Al-Shafi T, Abu Hanifa, c and Abu Thawr maintained that the hawl of the offspring is not the same as that for the mothers, unless the mothers constitute a nisab. The reason for their disagreement is the same reason for their disagreement about profits.

Suala hili linahusu kutoa zakat kabla ya kukamilika kwa hawl. Malik aliharamisha jambo hili, ilhali Abu Hanifa na al-Shafi‘i waliliruhusu. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kama zakat ni aina ya ibada au ni deni la haki kwa wahitaji. Wale waliosema kwamba ni aina ya ibada, na wakailinganisha na sala, hawakuruhusu kuilipa kabla ya wakati uliowekwa kwa ajili yake. Wale waliolichukulia kuwa linafanana na majukumu ya lazima yaliyocheleweshwa waliruhusu kuilipa kabla ya kumalizika kwa kipindi hicho, kama ilivyo kwa sadaka za hiari. Al-Shafi‘i alitoa hoja ya msimamo wake kwa msingi wa hadithi ya Ali, “kwamba Mtume ﷺ alikopa sadaka ya al-‘Abbas kabla ya wakati wake.”

This issue is about the payment of zakat prior to the completion of the hawl. Malik disallowed this, while Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi€T permitted it. The reason for their disagreement is whether zakat is a form of worship or a duty owed to the needy. Those who said that it is a form of worship, and they compared it to prayer, did not permit paying it prior to the time set for it. Those who held it to be similar to delayed obligatory duties permitted paying it prior to the end of the period like voluntary donations. Al-ShafiT argued for his opinion on the basis of the tradition of CAIT “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) borrowed the sadaqa of al-cAbbas prior to its time”