Zakat ibodat shaklida bo'lgani uchun u musulmon bo'lmaganlardan diniy jihatdan talab qilinmasligi aniqlangandan so'ng, savol tug'iladi: boy musulmon bo'lmaganlardan zakotga teng miqdorni muntazam soliq shaklida olib, kambag'allarga berish joizmi?
After settling that zakah is not required religiously from non-Muslims because it is a form of worship, the question arises: Is it permissible to take an amount equal to zakah in the form of a regular tax from wealthy non-Muslims to be rendered to the poor?
Shunday qilib, musulmonlar uchun to'lanadigan narsa farz va ibodat turi hisoblanadi, g'ayrimusulmonlar uchun esa oddiy soliqdir. Shunday yondashish orqali biz bir davlat fuqarolari o'rtasida farq qo'yishdan saqlanamiz, ya'ni musulmonlarga g'ayrimusulmonlarda muqobili bo'lmagan moliyaviy yuk yuklamaymiz, hamda musulmonlar va g'ayrimusulmonlarga turli qoidalarni qo'llashda yuzaga keladigan texnik va ma'muriy qiyinchiliklarning oldini olamiz.
Hence for Muslims what is paid is an obligation and a form of worship while for non-Muslims it is a simple tax. By so doing we avoid differentiating between citizens of the same state by imposing a financial burden on Muslims that has no equivalent on non-Muslims, and creating technical and administrative difficulties inherent in applying different rules on Muslims and non-Muslims.
Bu yangi masala bo'lib, uni malakali musulmon faqihlarning jamoaviy ijtihodi orqali hal qilish lozim.8 Lekin bu amalga oshirilguncha, men o'z tadqiqotim va masala haqidagi tushunchamga asoslanib, o'z fikrimni bayon qilishda hech qanday to'siq ko'rmayman. Shuni umid qilamanki, bunday shaxsiy harakat to'g'ri jamoaviy ijtihodga yo'l ochishi mumkin. Agar bu fikr to'g'ri bo'lsa, faqat Alloh taolo maqtovga loyiqdir, agar noto'g'ri bo'lsa, aybdor men bo'laman. Tadqiqotdan so'ng menga ayon bo'lganki, tegishli hokimiyat organlari shunday qaror qabul qilsa, ahdli xalqdan zakotga muqobil bo'lgan soliq shaklida undirish uchun hech qanday to'siq yo'q. Quyidagi nuqtalar bu da'voni batafsil yoritadi.
This is a new matter which needs collective ijtihad of capable Muslim jurists.8 But until this is achieved, I find no reason why I should not put forward my opinion based on my research and my understanding of the subject, believing that such individual exertion of effort could open the way for a sound collective Ijtihad. If this opinion is correct, God alone deserves praise and if it is wrong it is I who should be blamed. What appears to me after research is that there is no reason why an equivalent to zakah should not be taken from the people of the pledge in the form of a tax if it is so decided by the proper authorities. The following points elaborate upon this assertion.
1. Musulmon huquqshunoslari zakot norasida bo‘lmagan kishilardan talab qilinmasligini aytganlarida, ular oxirat mukofoti va jazosi bilan bog‘liq bo‘lgan diniy majburiyatni nazarda tutadilar. Biroq, qonun chiqaruvchilar tomonidan idrok etilgan jamoat ehtiyojiga asoslangan holda, tegishli hokimiyat organlari uni siyosiy majburiyat sifatida joriy etishiga hech narsa to‘sqinlik qilmaydi.
1. When Muslim jurists state that zakah is not required from non-Muslims, they are speaking of the religious kind of requirement which is related to reward and punishment in the hereafter. There is nothing, however, that prevents its establishment as a political requirement by the proper authorities, based on public need as perceived by legislators.
2. Fuqaholarning kofirlarga zakot to'lashni majburiy qilmaslik sababi shuki, zakot — kofirlar o'zlarini bu burchga majbur qilmagan burchdir.9 Bu degani, agar kofirlar bunday burchni qabul qilsalar, uning majburiy bo'lishiga hech qanday to'siq yo'q.
2. The reason jurists give for not obligating non-Muslims to pay zakah is that it is a duty to which non-Muslims did not commit themselves.9 This means that if non- Muslims accept such a duty there is no reason why it may not become mandatory.
3. Ahli zimma xalqlari musulmon yurtlarida Qur'onda "jizya" deb atalgan, davlatga to'lanadigan moliyaviy to'lovni davlat xarajatlariga qo'shgan hissasi sifatida to'lar edilar. Bu davlat ularni musulmonlar kabi himoya, mudofaa, ijtimoiy ta'minot hamda nogironlik, qarilik va kambag'allik sug'urtasi bilan ta'minlardi. Bunga Umar ﷺ ning amali aniq dalil bo'ladi: u bir qancha qari yahudiylarni eshiklar oldida tilanchilik qilayotganini ko'rib, bunday ta'minotlarni joriy etgan edi. Bugungi musulmon mamlakatlarida esa Kitob ahli jizya to'lamaydi va bu so'zning o'zini rad etadi. Shunday ekan, ularning zakot kabi hisoblangan, ammo "jizya" nomisiz boshqa soliq to'lashi mumkinmi?
3. The people of the pledge in Muslim lands used to pay a financial due to the Islamic state called by the Qur'an "jiziah" as a contribution towards the public expenditure of the state that provides them with protection, defense, social security, and disability, old age, and poverty insurance, like Muslims. This is clear in the action of Omar, who made these provisions when he saw some elderly jews begging at doors. The reality in Muslim countries today is that the people of the Book do not pay jiziah and reject the word itself. Is it thus possible that they should pay a substitute tax calculated like zakah but without the label of jiziah?
Tarixchilar, hadis to'plovchilari va islomiy moliya bo'yicha ixtisoslashgan fiqhshunoslar xabar berishicha, bu masalada 'Umar ibn al-Xattob bizga Taglib qabilasining nasroniylari bilan bo'lgan munosabatida namuna qoldirgan. Abu 'Ubayd rivoyat qiladi: al-Nu'mon ibn Zar'a 'Umar ibn al-Xattobdan Taglib qabilasi masalasi haqida so'radi. 'Umar ulardan jizya olmoqchi edi, bu esa ularning yurtda tarqalib ketishiga sabab bo'lardi. Al-Nu'mon ibn Zar'a 'Umarga dedi: "Ey mo'minlar amiri, Taglib qabilasi arablardir. Ular jizya so'zidan xafa bo'ladilar. Ularda naqd pul zaxiralari yo'q. Ular dehqonchilik va chorvachilik bilan shug'ullanadigan xalqdir, dushmanimiz ularni tahriklashi mumkin. Iltimos, ularni o'zingizdan uzoqlashtirib, dushmanga yordam bermang." Shundan so'ng 'Umar ular bilan kelishib oldi, bunga ko'ra ular zakot miqdorining ikki baravarini to'lashlari sharti qo'yildi.
Historians, compilers of hadith, and jurists specialized in Islamic finance report that 'Umar bin al Khattab provided us with a precedent in this matter in his stand with the Christians of bani Taghlib. Abu 'Ubaid reports that al Nu'man bin Zar'ah asked 'Umar bin al Khattab about the question of bani Taghlib. 'Umar was about to collect jiziah from them, which would drive them to disperse in the land. Al Nu'man bin Zar'ah told 'Umar, "Oh Leader of Believers, bani Taghlib are Arabs. They are dismayed at the word jiziah. They don't own cash funds. They are people of agriculture and cattle and they can be instigated by our enemy. Please do not help your enemy by drifting them away." Then 'Umar reconciled with them on the condition that they pay double the amount of zakah.
Al-Bayhaqiy 'Ubodah ibn al-Nu'mon'dan uzun bir rivoyatda naql qiladi: qabila bahslashib, "Biz arablarmiz. Zimmiylar to'laydigan narsani biz to'lamaymiz. Bizdan xuddi odamlar bir-biridan olganidek ol", dedi, ya'ni zakot nazarda tutilgan edi. 'Umar esa: "Yo'q. Bu musulmonlarga farz qilingan majburiyatdir", dedi. Ular javob berdilar: "Xohlaganingizcha belgilang, lekin bu nom ostida bo'lsin, jizya nomi yoki uning nomi ostida emas." U rozi bo'ldi va shundan so'ng ular ulardan to'lanadigan miqdorni ikki baravar qilish ustida kelishib oldilar. Bu rivoyatning ba'zi nusxalarida 'Umar: "Xohlaganingizcha ataing", degan.10
Al Baihaqi reported from 'Ubadah bin al Nu'man, in a long saying, that the tribe argued, "We are Arabs. We don't pay what the non-Arabs pay. Take from us as your people take from each other", meaning zakah. 'Umar said, "No. This is an obligation on Muslims," They replied, "Impose whatever you want, but under that name, not under the name or jiziah." He agreed, and then they settled on doubling the amount due from them. In some versions of this saying 'Umar said, "Call it whatever you like."10
Imom Abu 'Ubaid Umarning Bani Tag'lib bilan qilgan ishi haqida shunday deydi: "Mening fikrimcha, Umar zakot so'zini ishlatib, jizya so'zini qoldirdi, chunki u ularning jizya so'zidan nafratlanib, uni rad etayotganini sezdi. U ular rimliklarga qo'shilib, ularga yordam berishidan va shu tariqa musulmonlarga qarshi chiqishidan qo'rqdi. Shu bilan birga u tushundiki, to'lanishi kerak bo'lgan narsa yig'ilgan ekan, o'sha so'zni chetga qoldirishdan musulmonlarga hech qanday zarar yetmaydi. Shuning uchun u soliqlarni zakot nomi ostida yig'ishga rozi bo'ldi, shunday qilib ularni davlat bilan murosaga keltirdi va shu bilan birga ularning to'lovlarini yig'ishni davom ettirdi. Bunda u to'g'ri ish qildi, ayniqsa Payg'ambar ﷺ dan rivoyat qilinganki, Alloh Umarning og'zi va yuragiga haqiqatni joylagan. Abdulloh ibn Mas'ud aytdi: "Men Umarni faqat shunday ko'rdimki, go'yo uning peshonasida, ikki ko'zi orasida bir farishta bor bo'lib, uni to'g'ri tutib turardi." Ali esa shunday degan deb rivoyat qilinadi: "Donolik doim Umarning og'zidan chiqardi, deb aytish haqiqatdan uzoq emas edi." Oisha esa aytdi: "U o'ziga xos tabiatga ega edi, go'yo barcha qiyinchiliklar uchun aynan kerakli yechimlarni tayyorlab qo'ygandek edi." Abu 'Ubaid qo'shimcha qildi: "U Bani Tag'lib bilan qilgan ishi o'sha aniq yechimlardan biri va Umarning sanoqsiz yaxshi ishlaridan biri edi." Shunday qilib, Umar nasroniylardan jizya yoki uning nomi ularga yoqmagani sababli, zakot nomi ostida soliq olishda hech qanday noto'g'rilik ko'rmadi va o'zaro kelishuv asosida ulardan olinadigan zakot miqdorini ikki baravar oshirdi. Shu sababli az-Zuhriy aytdi: "Kitob ahlidan faqat Bani Tag'lib nasroniylaridan yoki nasroniy arablardan boshqalarning chorvasidan zakot olinmaydi, chunki chorva ular boyligining asosiy qismidir."12
Imam Abu 'Ubaid comments on the action of the Leader of Believers, 'Umar, with bani Taghlib by saying, "In my opinion 'Umar used the word zakah and left the word jiziah because he noticed their abhorrence and rejection of the word jiziah. He feared that they would join and aid the Romans against Muslims, and realized that no harm would be done to Muslims by leaving aside that word as long as what needed to be collected was collected. So he agreed to collect the dues under the name of zakah, thus reconciling them with the state while still collecting their dues. He was correct in so doing, especially since it is reported in a saying from the Prophet (p) that God has put truth in the mouth and heart of 'Umar. Abdullah bin Mas'ud said, 'I have not seen 'Umar except as if an angel were on his forehead between his eyes holding him straight.'Ali is reported as having said, 'It was not unrealistic to say that wisdom always came from 'Umar's mouth,' and 'Aisha said, 'He was of a unique nature, as if he had prepared, for all difficulties, solutions that are exactly what is needed." Abu 'Ubaid added, "What he did with bani Taghlib was one of those exact solutions and one of those uncountable good deeds of 'Umar."11 So 'Umar did not see any wrong in collecting a due from Christians under the name of zakah, because of their dislike of the title jiziah, and doubled the amount of zakah owed by them through mutual agreement. For that reason al Zuhri said: there are no financial dues on the livestock of the people of the Book except the Christians of bani Taghlib or Christian 'Arabs, for whom livestock is the major part of their wealth.12
ʻUmar qilgan ish boshqa sahobalar tomonidan ma'qullangan. Unday bo'lsa, nega bugungi musulmon mamlakatlarida Islom tizimi ularga solgan jizya o'rniga ahdli xalqqa soliq joriy etib bo'lmasligi kerak? Bu soliq musulmonlarga yuklangan ikki vazifa – jihod, ya'ni o'z qonini qurbon qilish, va zakot, ya'ni boyligining bir qismini qurbon qilish – o'rnini bosadi. Nega bunday soliqni mutaxassislar, musulmon va nomusulmon taniqli arboblar bilan maslahatlashgan holda qonun orqali joriy qilib bo'lmasligi kerak? Bu soliqni zakot deb atash shart emas, deb hisoblayman. ʻUmarning ish tutishi zamonaviy sharoitda, bugungi davrning muammolarini hal qilishda bu yondashuvni tanlamoqchi bo'lganlar uchun ibratli namuna bo'lib xizmat qiladi.
What 'Umar did was approved by other companions. So why can we not make a tax on the people of the pledge in Muslim countries today in place or the jiziah levied on them by the Islamic system. This tax would be in substitution for two mandates on Muslims, that of jihad, in which they sacrifice their own blood, and that of zakah, in which they sacrifice part of their wealth. Why could we not legislate such a tax after consultation with prominent figures, Muslim and Non-Muslims? This tax need not even be called zakah I believe that the act of 'Umar is an enlightening precedent for those who would like to take such an approach in contemporary circumstances with relation to problems of our age.
Shofeiy va Hanbaliy mazhabidagi olimlar shunday deganlar: "Agar kofirlardan iborat bir guruh kuchli bo'lib, bani Tag'lib kabi shartnomadan boshqacha tarzda jizya to'lashni rad etsa va ularning talabini qabul qilmaslikda xavf bo'lsa, imom shunday xavfning oldini olish uchun buni qabul qilishga rozi bo'lsa, undan olinadigan miqdor jizyaga teng yoki undan ko'p bo'lsa, bunga ruxsat etiladi."13 Shubhasiz, bu sahih fikr bo'lib, 'Umarning bani Tag'lib borasidagi amali unga kuchli dalil bo'la oladi.
Shafiites and Hambalites have said, "If a group of non-Muslims was potentially powerful and refused to pay jiziah except with an agreement similar to that of bani Taghlib, and there was danger in not accepting its demand, and the Imam agreed to accept it to prevent such danger, it is permissible to do so if the amount collected from them is equal to or greater than jiziah."13 Undoubtedly this is a sound opinion that has strong support in the action of 'Umar regarding bani Taghlib.
Har qanday o'sadigan boylikdan olinadigan zakot jizyadan ancha ko'pdir, deb shubha yo'q. Jizya - qurol ko'tara oladigan erkaklardan olinadigan kichik soliqdir, zakot esa ko'pchilik fuqahoning fikriga ko'ra erkaklarga, ayollarga, bolalarga va aqli noqis kishilarga ham joriy etiladi. Ammo ahdlashuv xalqiga zakotni ikki baravar qilish zarur emas. 'Umar buni Bani Tag'lib bilan faqat ular imzolagan va qabul qilgan kelishuvning sharti bo'lgani uchun qilgan. Bunday masala diniy asosda olib boriladigan siyosiy qarorlarga, shuningdek, davlat va din manfaatlari bilan birga jamoat manfaatiga bog'liqdir.
There is no doubt that zakah on all growing forms of wealth is much more than jiziah. Jiziah is a small due exacted from men who are capable of carrying weapons, while zakah is imposed on men, women, children and insane individuals according to the view of the majority of jurists. However, doubling the amount of zakah on the people of the people of the pledge is not necessary. 'Umar did that with bani Taghlib only because it was a condition of an agreement they signed and accepted. Such a matter depends on the religiously conducted political decisions and on the public interest as well as that of the state and religion.
Ibn Rushd to'g'ri ravishda bu savolni "Zimmiylar zakoti" sarlavhasi ostida ko'tardi va shunday dedi: "Ahd ahllari (zimmiylar) haqida aytadigan bo'lsak, ko'pchilik olimlarning fikri shuki, ularni zakot to'lashga majburlab bo'lmaydi. Yagona istisno — Bani Taghlib nasroniylari zakotini ikki barobar qilish haqida ba'zi olimlarning qarashidir. Shofe'iy, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad va as-Savriy ham shunday fikrni bildirganlar. Biroq Molik bunday fikr bildirgani rivoyat qilinmagan. Birinchilar Umar ibn al-Xattobning ushbu amalini faqat o'sha alohida holatga tegishli deb hisoblaydilar, chunki u Shariatning asosiy qoidalariga mos kelmaydi."14
Ibn Rushd correctly raised this question under the title of "Zakah on the People of the Pledge," saying, "As for the people of the pledge, the majority's view is that they are not compelled to pay zakah. The only exception is the view of some scholars concerning doubling zakah on the Christians of bani Taghlib. Shafi'i, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, and al Thawri offered such opinions too. However, it is not reported that Ma'lik expressed such a view. The formers refer to the action of 'Umar bin al Khattab as applicable only to that specific case since it does not seem to fit with the basic rules of Shari'ah."14
Shuni qo‘shimcha qilishim mumkinki, biz avval ‘Umarning bu harakati haqidagi Abu ‘Ubaydning sharhini keltirgan edik.
I may add that we have previously quoted Abu 'Ubaid's explanation of 'Umar's move.
U bu Shariat asosiy qoidalariga zid emas edi. Aksincha, bu musulmonlarning manfaatlarini amalga oshirish va ularga nisbatan mavjud bo'lgan potentsial xavfni bartaraf etish edi. Demak, uni faqat o'sha alohida voqea bilan cheklab qo'yish uchun hech qanday sabab yo'q, ayniqsa Payg'ambar ﷺ ning donishmand xalifalari (al-Xulafa' ar-Roshidin) sunnatiga ergashish haqidagi buyrug'i nuqtai nazaridan.
It was not in violation of the basic rules of Shari'ah. Rather, it was a realization of the interests of Muslims and the removal of a potential threat to them. This means that there is no reason why it should be applicable only to that specific incident, especially in light or Prophet Muhammad's command to follow the tradition of his wise successors (al Khulaf' al Rashidin).
4. Bizning pozitsiyamizni Abu Hanifaning shogirdi Muhammad ibn al-Hasan keltirgan bir precedent qo'llab-quvvatlaydi. U shunday degan: "Agar musulmon o'zining zakot solinadigan ('ushriy) yerini, ya'ni xiroj solinmaydigan yerini, ahd (himoya shartnomasi) egasiga sotsa, o'sha shaxs yer uchun ushr zakotini to'lashga majbur bo'ladi. Zakot solinadigan bo'lish yerning shunday tavsifi bo'lib, u mulkdorning almashinishi natijasida o'zgarmaydi. Ahd egasiga hech qanday majburiyatni to'lamasdan yerdan foydalanishga ruxsat berish joiz emas."15
4. Our stance is supported by a precedent mentioned by Muhammad bin al Hasan, a disciple of Abu Hanifah. He said, "If a Muslim sells his zakatable land ('ushri) that is not Kharajable to a person of the pledge, that person becomes liable to the zakah on the land ('ushr). Being Zakatable is a description of land that does not change because of a change of ownership. It is not permissible to let the person of the pledge use the land without paying any dues.15
5. Kitob ahli ham o‘z dinida zakot berish va kambag‘allarga g‘amxo‘rlik qilishga buyurilgan. Biz ilgari bu hukmga ishora qiluvchi Qur’on oyatlarini keltirgan edik, masalan, quyidagi oyat: {Ularga faqat shunga buyurilgan edi: Allohga xolis ibodat qilsinlar, Unga sadoqat bilan bo‘lsinlar, namozni to‘kis ado etsinlar va zakot bersinlar. Mana shu to‘g‘ri din.}16
5. The people of the Book are ordained in their religion to perform zakah and to care for the poor. We have quoted earlier the verses of the Qur'an which point to this ordinance, such as the verse: "And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship God, offer Him sincere devotion, be true (in faith), to establish regular prayer, and to practice zakah and that is the religion right and straight."16
Biz ham Kitobdagi odamlarning bugungi kundagi kitoblaridan iqtiboslar keltirdik. Eski Ahd ham, Yangi Ahd ham kambag'allarga g'amxo'rlik qilishga chaqiruvchi va undovchi ko'plab bayonotlarga ega. Shunday ekan, agar Kitob ahli zakotni ado etishga chaqirilsa, ular o'z dinlarida ildizi bo'lgan narsani so'ralmoqda.l7 Yangilik faqat zakotning miqdorini belgilash va uning majburiy xarakteri masalasidir.
We have also quoted from their books as they exist today. Both Old and New Testaments have many statements that call for, and encourage, caring for the poor. So if the people of the Book are called to implement zakah, they are asked for something which has its seed in their own religion.l7 The only new issue being the estimation of the amount due and its compulsory character.
6. Umar ibn al-Khattab va ba'zi tobe'inlardan rivoyat qilinadiki, zakot mablag'ini ahdli xalqqa (ahl al-ʿahd) sarflash joizdir. Bu masala zakotni taqsim qilish haqidagi bobda batafsil bayon etiladi. Agar musulmonlardan olingan zakotni ularga sarflash joiz bo'lsa, nega ularning boy kishilaridan olingan zakotni kambag'allariga berish joiz bo'lmasin? Bu esa islom davlatida yashovchi barcha musulmonlar va g'ayrimusulmonlar o'rtasida bo'lishi shart bo'lgan ijtimoiy hamjihatlikni ta'minlaydi. Bunday holda, bu majburiyatni "ijtimoiy sug'urta solig'i" yoki "g'amxo'rlik solig'i" yoki ularni islomiy zakotdan ajratib turadigan shunga o'xshash boshqa nom bilan atash mumkin, shunda ularning yoki musulmonlarning vijdonlari xijolat chekmasin. Bu soliqlardan har birining mablag'ini taqsimlash alohida-alohida bo'lishi kerak. Ular nisbat, stavka, shartlar va soliqqa tortiladigan mol-mulk jihatidan o'xshash bo'lsa-da, nomi va taqsimlanishi jihatidan farq qiladi, chunki ularning tabiati ikki xil va ular turli hokimiyatlar tomonidan joriy etiladi.
6. It is narrated from 'Umar bin al Khattab and some Followers that spending the proceeds of zakah on the people of the pledge is permissible. This will be discussed in detail in the part on the dispersement of zakah. If it is permissible to spend on them zakah that is collected from Muslims, why should it not be permissible to take zakah from their wealthy members and render it to their poor? This fulfills the social solidarity that must exist among all Muslims and non-Muslims who live under the Islamic state. In such a case, this duty may be called "tax of social insurance" or "tax of caring" or any similar name that distinguishes it from the Islamic zakah, so as not to disconcert their consciences or those of Muslims. The dispersement of the proceeds of each of these taxes should be distinctly separate. They are similar in ratio, rate, conditions, and the assets taxed, but they are different in name and dispersement since they have two different natures and are mandated by different authorities.