Majadiliano ya kina kuhusu aina hii ya ibada, baada ya kuthibitishwa wajibu wake, yamegawanywa katika sura tano. Sura ya kwanza inahusu watu ambao ni wajibu kwao. Sura ya pili inahusu kubainisha aina za mali ambazo zinawekewa zaka. Sura ya tatu inahusu kubainisha viwango na kiasi kinachotozwa. Sura ya nne inahusu kubainisha vipindi ambavyo zaka hutozwa na vipindi ambavyo haitozwi. Sura ya tano inahusu kubainisha watu ambao zaka inapaswa kutolewa kwao na kiasi wanachostahili.

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.

Uamuzi wa wajibu wake kupitia Qur'ani, Sunna, na kutoka kwenye ijmaa' (makubaliano ya wanazuoni) unajulikana vizuri, na hakuna mjadala kuhusu hili.

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.

Walikubaliana kwamba ni wajibu kwa kila Mwislamu aliye huru, mwenye baleghe, mwenye akili timamu, na anayemiliki mali sawa na kiwango kilichowekwa (nisab) kwa umiliki kamili (usio na deni wala kizuizi). Walitofautiana kuhusu wajibu wake kwa yatima, mwendawazimu, watumwa, ahl al-dhimmah, na mtu ambaye umiliki wake una upungufu (wenye kizuizi), kama mtu aliye na deni au anayedai deni, au pale ambapo mtaji wa mali unashikiliwa katika wakfu (habs, waqf), kwa mfano.

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}.

Kuhusu watoto wadogo, kundi moja lilisema kwamba zakat ni wajibu juu ya mali yao. Hii ilikuwa maoni ya ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Umar, Jabir, na ‘A’isha miongoni mwa Maswahaba, na ya Malik, al-Shafi‘i, al-Thawri, Ahmad, ‘Ishaq, Abu Thawr, na wengine miongoni mwa wanazuoni wa mikoani. Kundi jingine lilisema kwamba hakuna zakat kabisa juu ya mali ya mtoto mdogo. Hii ilikuwa maoni ya al-Nakha‘i, al-Hasan, na Sa‘id ibn Jubayr miongoni mwa Tabi‘un. Kundi moja la wanazuoni lilitofautisha kati ya mazao ya ardhi na mali isiyotokana na ardhi. Walisema kwamba kuna zakat juu ya mazao ya ardhi, lakini hakuna zakat juu ya yaliyo nje ya hayo kama mifugo, mali ya fedha taslimu, na bidhaa (mali ya biashara). Hii ilikuwa maoni ya Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake. Kundi jingine lilitofautisha kati ya mali ya fedha taslimu na vitu vingine, likisema kwamba kuna zakat juu ya mali isipokuwa mali ya fedha taslimu.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao kuhusu watu ambao zakat ni wajibu kwao inatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu asili ya zakat kisheria: je, ni aina ya ibada kama swala na saumu, au ni haki ya lazima ya masikini juu ya mali ya tajiri. Wale waliosema kwamba ni ibada wameweka baleghe ya mtu kuwa sharti (la wajibu), ilhali wale waliosema kwamba ni haki ya lazima ya masikini na wahitaji juu ya mali ya tajiri hawakuzingatia baleghe ya mtu, miongoni mwa mambo mengine. Wale waliofanya tofauti kati ya mazao ya ardhi na yasiyotokana nayo, na pia kati ya mali inayoonekana na isiyoonekana, kwao sijui kwa sasa ushahidi walioutegemea.

Suala hili linahusu matunda ya miti, wakati miti hiyo ni mali ya wakfu. Malik na al-Shafi'i walikuwa wakiweka zakat juu yake, ilhali Makhul na Tawus walikuwa wakisema kwamba hakuna zakat juu yake. Kundi la wanazuoni wa sheria walikuwa wakifanya tofauti pale miti ilipokuwa wakfu kwa ajili ya wahitaji kwa ujumla au kwa kundi maalum. Walikuwa wakiweka zakat pale walionufaika walipokuwa kundi lililobainishwa (maalum), lakini hawakufanya hivyo pale walionufaika walipokuwa wahitaji kwa ujumla. Hakuna hoja ya kuweka zakat juu ya wahitaji kwa sababu mambo mawili yanayozuia yanatumika hapa: kwanza, hilo linaleta umiliki usio kamili, na pili, wahitaji ni kundi lisilobainishwa la watu ambao fedha za zakat zinapaswa kutumiwa kwao, na si wale ambao zakat inatolewa kutoka kwao.

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.

Suala la pili linahusu ardhi iliyotolewa kwa kukodishwa. Linahusu swali la nani anawajibika kulipa zakat juu ya mavuno ya ardhi hii. Kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kwamba zakat inatozwa kwa mpangaji, ambaye ndiye mmiliki wa mimea. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa maoni ya Malik, al-Shafi‘i, al-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Thawr, na kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi. Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake walishikilia kwamba zakat ni wajibu wa mmiliki wa ardhi, na mtu anayekodi kutoka kwake hadaiwi chochote.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na swali la kama 'ushr ni wajibu unaohusiana na ardhi, au na kilimo, au na vyote viwili. Hakuna aliyesema kuwa ni wajibu unaohusiana na vyote viwili, ilhali kwa kweli ni wajibu unaohusiana na vyote viwili. Walikubaliana kuwa ni wajibu unaomlazimu mmoja kati ya hao wawili, lakini walitofautiana kuhusu ni yupi anayetangulia kuhusishwa na jambo ambalo kuna makubaliano juu yake, nalo ni hali ya zao na ardhi kuwa mali ya mmiliki mmoja. Jumhuri walishikilia kuwa unahusiana na kitu ambacho zakaa hutolewa kutoka humo, nacho ni nafaka (au mazao). Abu Hanifa, hata hivyo, alishikilia kuwa unahusiana na kitu ambacho ndicho msingi wa wajibu, nacho ni ardhi.

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.

Kuhusu mzozo wao juu ya ardhi ya kharaj, inapohamishiwa kwa Waislamu, je, ʿushr hutozwa juu yake pamoja na kharaj, au hakuna ʿushr, wengi walishikilia kuwa kuna ʿushr, yaani zakat, ilhali Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake walishikilia kuwa hakuna ʿushr juu yake. Sababu ya kutokubaliana kwao inatokana, kama tulivyosema, na swali la kama zakat ni wajibu unaohusiana na ardhi au na zao. Tukishikilia kuwa ni wajibu unaohusiana na ardhi, basi wajibu wawili hauwezi kuunganishwa nayo kwa wakati mmoja, nao ni ʿushr na kharaj. Tukishikilia kuwa zakat inahusiana na zao, basi kharaj itawekwa kwenye ardhi na zakat kwenye zao. Mzozo huu unatokea kwa sababu umiliki ni wa upungufu kama tulivyoeleza, na ni kwa sababu hiyo ndipo wanazuoni walitofautiana kuhusu uuzaji wa ardhi ya kharaj. Hata hivyo, ikiwa ardhi ya ʿushr itahamishiwa kwa dhimmi anayeilima, wengi wanashikilia kuwa hakuna wajibu juu yake. Al-Nuʿman alishikilia kuwa dhimmi anaponunua ardhi ya ʿushr, inageuka kuwa ardhi ya kharaj. Inaonekana alizingatia kuwa ʿushr ni wajibu unaolazimika juu ya ardhi ya Waislamu, na kuwa kharaj ni wajibu unaolazimika juu ya ardhi ya dhimmi. Lakini kwa msingi wa kanuni hii, ilimlazimu kusema kwamba ikiwa ardhi ya kharaj itahamishiwa kwa Waislamu, itageuka kuwa ardhi ya ʿushr, kama vile kwa mtazamo wake ardhi ya ʿushr inavyogeuka kuwa ardhi ya kharaj ikihamishiwa kwa dhimmi.

Kuna masuala madogo yanayohusiana na mmiliki wa mali ambayo mjadala wake unafaa kuwekwa katika sehemu hii. La kwanza ni (hali ya) mtu anapotenga zakat lakini ikapotea. La pili, pale ambapo kutenga zakat kunawezekana lakini sehemu ya mali imeharibika kabla zakat haijatengwa. La tatu, pale ambapo mmiliki alikuwa na wajibu wa kulipa zakat, lakini akafariki kabla hajalipa. La nne, nani atakayelipa zakat endapo atauza mazao au matunda ambayo zakat ilikuwa ni wajibu juu yake, na vivyo hivyo pale anapoyatoa kama zawadi.

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.

Suala hili linahusu tatizo ambalo mmiliki anatenga zakat na kisha ikapotea. Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kwamba anapewa sifa ya kuwa ameshaitoa. Kundi jingine lilisema kwamba anawajibika kuilipa hadi aifikishe mahali pake. Kundi la tatu lilifanya tofauti kati ya kuitenga kwake baadaye kuliko wakati ilipowezekana kufanya hivyo, na kati ya kuitenga (mara moja) mwanzoni mwa wakati wajibu unapotokea na wakati ilipowezekana kufanya hivyo. Baadhi ya wanazuoni hawa walisema kwamba akiitenga siku kadhaa baada ya wakati wajibu unapotokea na uwezekano wa kufanya hivyo, basi anawajibika, lakini akiitenga wakati wa kwanza kabisa wajibu unapotokea na hakukuwa na uzembe upande wake, basi hawajibiki. Hii ni kauli maarufu katika madhehebu ya Malik. Kundi la nne la wanazuoni lilisema kwamba ikiwa kulikuwa na uzembe upande wake, anapaswa kulipa fidia, lakini ikiwa hakuwa mzembe, analipa zakat kwa kiasi kilichobaki peke yake. Hii ilikuwa kauli ya Abu Thawr na al-Shafi'i. Kundi la tano lilisema kwamba kilichopotea kinahesabiwa kuwa hasara kwa pande zote, na watu wenye uhitaji pamoja na mmiliki wanachukuliwa kuwa wamiliki wenza kwa uwiano wa sehemu zao katika mali iliyobaki, kama ilivyo kwa washirika wawili wanapopoteza sehemu ya mtaji wa pamoja lakini wanabaki washirika katika kilichosalia kwa uwiano uleule. Hivyo, tunapata kauli tano kuhusu suala hili: kwanza, kwamba yeye haina wajibu wa kulipa hasara hata kidogo; pili, kwamba daima analipa fidia; tatu, kwamba analipa fidia ikiwa alikuwa mzembe, lakini asipolipa ikiwa hakuwa mzembe; nne, kwamba analipa fidia ikiwa alikuwa mzembe na analipa zakat juu ya kilichobaki ikiwa hakuwa; na tano, kwamba wao (mmiliki na wenye uhitaji) wanakuwa washirika katika mali iliyobaki.

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.

Suala hili linahusu tatizo ambalo mmiliki anatenga zakat na kisha ikapotea. Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kwamba anapewa sifa ya kuwa ameshaitoa. Kundi jingine lilisema kwamba anawajibika kuilipa hadi aifikishe mahali pake. Kundi la tatu lilifanya tofauti kati ya kuitenga kwake baadaye kuliko wakati ilipowezekana kufanya hivyo, na kati ya kuitenga (mara moja) mwanzoni mwa wakati wajibu unapotokea na wakati ilipowezekana kufanya hivyo. Baadhi ya wanazuoni hawa walisema kwamba akiitenga siku kadhaa baada ya wakati wajibu unapotokea na uwezekano wa kufanya hivyo, basi anawajibika, lakini akiitenga wakati wa kwanza kabisa wajibu unapotokea na hakukuwa na uzembe upande wake, basi hawajibiki. Hii ni kauli maarufu katika madhehebu ya Malik. Kundi la nne la wanazuoni lilisema kwamba ikiwa kulikuwa na uzembe upande wake, anapaswa kulipa fidia, lakini ikiwa hakuwa mzembe, analipa zakat kwa kiasi kilichobaki peke yake. Hii ilikuwa kauli ya Abu Thawr na al-Shafi'i. Kundi la tano lilisema kwamba kilichopotea kinahesabiwa kuwa hasara kwa pande zote, na watu wenye uhitaji pamoja na mmiliki wanachukuliwa kuwa wamiliki wenza kwa uwiano wa sehemu zao katika mali iliyobaki, kama ilivyo kwa washirika wawili wanapopoteza sehemu ya mtaji wa pamoja lakini wanabaki washirika katika kilichosalia kwa uwiano uleule. Hivyo, tunapata kauli tano kuhusu suala hili: kwanza, kwamba yeye haina wajibu wa kulipa hasara hata kidogo; pili, kwamba daima analipa fidia; tatu, kwamba analipa fidia ikiwa alikuwa mzembe, lakini asipolipa ikiwa hakuwa mzembe; nne, kwamba analipa fidia ikiwa alikuwa mzembe na analipa zakat juu ya kilichobaki ikiwa hakuwa; na tano, kwamba wao (mmiliki na wenye uhitaji) wanakuwa washirika katika mali iliyobaki. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na kulinganisha zakat na madeni; yaani, wajibu huu unahusishwa na dhima ya mtu na si na mali yenyewe, au kulinganisha kwake na wajibu unaohusiana na mali yenyewe na si na dhima ya mtu aliyeshika mali, kama ilivyo kwa wadhamini na wengine. Wale waliowafananisha wamiliki wa mali na wadhamini walisema kwamba akiitenga kisha ikapotea, hakuna kitu kinachomlazimu. Wale waliowafananisha na wadeni walisema kwamba wanapaswa kufidia (hasara hiyo). Wale waliotofautisha kwa msingi wa uzembe na kutokuwepo kwake waliwahusisha na wadhamini kwa kila upande, kwa kuwa mdhamini hufidia endapo kuna uzembe. Wale walioshikilia kwamba, asipokuwa mzembe, analazimika kutoa zakat ya kilichobaki, walimlinganisha mtu aliyepoteza sehemu ya mali yake baada ya kuitenga zakat na mtu aliyepoteza sehemu ya mali yake kabla ya kuanza kwa wajibu; kama vile mtu huyo wa pili hutoa zakat wakati wa wajibu juu ya kilichopo mikononi mwake, ndivyo mtu wa kwanza atatoa zakat juu ya kilichopo mikononi mwake. Sababu ya kutofautiana inatokana na tofauti katika kumhusisha mmiliki na mdeni, mdhamini, mshirika, na mtu aliyepoteza sehemu ya mali yake kabla ya wajibu.

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.

Hii inahusu mtu anayekufa baada ya kuanza kwa wajibu • IQ?

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

ya zakat. Kikundi kimoja cha wanazuoni wa fiqh kilisema kwamba inapaswa kutolewa kutoka mtaji wake. Hii ilikuwa maoni ya al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq, na Abu Thawr. Kikundi kingine kilisema kwamba zakat inalipwa tu ikiwa ameacha wasia wa kwamba ilipwe kutoka mali yake. Katika hali hiyo, itatolewa kutoka theluthi ya mali. Vinginevyo, hakuna chochote kinachopaswa kulipwa. Baadhi ya wanazuoni hao walisema kwamba zakat inatekelezwa kwanza ikiwa ni kiasi sawa na theluthi au chini ya hapo, huku wengine wakisema kwamba haitekelezwi kwanza. Maoni yote mawili yamesimuliwa kutoka kwa Malik, lakini maoni maarufu ni kwamba inachukuliwa kama wasia.

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.

Kuhusu tofauti yao juu ya mali inayouzwa baada ya zakat kuwa imewajibika juu yake, kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqh lilisema kwamba mtu ambaye zakat ni wajibu wake (muuzaji) anaweza kuichukua zakat kutoka kwenye mali yenyewe, na mnunuzi atamrejea muuzaji kwa thamani yake. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa maoni ya Abu Thawr. Kundi jingine la wanazuoni wa fiqh lilisema kwamba mauzo yanavunjwa, na hii ilikuwa maoni ya al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa alisema kwamba mnunuzi ana chaguo kati ya kutekeleza mauzo au kuyafutilia mbali, na ushuru wa 'ushr utachukuliwa kutoka kwenye matunda au kwenye nafaka ambayo zakat ilikuwa wajibu juu yake. Malik alisema kwamba muuzaji ndiye mwenye dhamana ya kulipa zakat.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na kulinganisha uuzaji wa mali na upotevu wake pamoja na uharibifu wake. Wale waliozifanya hizo mbili kuwa sawa walisema kwamba zakat ni wajibu wa mtu anayeharibu mali au anayesababisha upotevu wake. Wale walioshikilia kwamba uuzaji hauhesabiwi kuwa uharibifu wa dhati ya mali wala upotevu wake, bali ni uuzaji wa mtu wa kitu ambacho si chake, walisema kwamba zakat inahusishwa na dhati ya mali. Kama uuzaji unapaswa kubatilishwa ni mjadala tofauti, ambao utatajwa katika sehemu ya mauzo, Mungu akipenda. Mgogoro wao kuhusu zakat ya mali iliyotolewa kwa njia ya zawadi ni wa aina hiyo hiyo.

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.

Katika baadhi ya masuala haya tuliyoyataja, kuna majadiliano ya kina katika Madhhab ambayo hatukuona yanafaa kuwasilishwa hapa, kwa kuwa hayaendani na lengo letu. Zaidi ya hayo, inakuwa vigumu kutoa sababu za tofauti hizi, kwa sababu nyingi kati yake zinategemea istihsān, kama mjadala wao kuhusu maelezo ya madeni yanayowajibisha zakāt na yale yasiyowajibisha, na madeni yanayosababisha kuondolewa kwa zakāt na yale yasiyosababisha. Kwa hiyo, haya ndiyo tuliyoona yapasa kutajwa katika sura hii, nayo yanahusu kumtambua mtu ambaye zakāt inamlazimu, kwa masharti ya umiliki ambayo kwayo zakāt inakuwa wajibu, na hukumu zinazomhusu mtu anayelazimika kutoa.