Agar aksiyalar savdo tovarlari (inventar) kabi qaralib, ularga zakot solinsa, korporatsiyalarning o'zlari olgan daromadiga ham aksiyadorlarning zakotidan tashqari zakot solish joizmi?
If shares are treated like trade inventory and subjected to zakah, is it lawful to impose zakah on the earning of the corporations themselves, in additions to the zakah on the shareholders?
Professor Abu Zahrah va uning ikki hamkasbi, ulush (aksiya)lar egalari tomonidan tovar sifatida mulk qilinadi, deb hisoblaganlari uchun, korxonalar o'z faoliyatlari bo'yicha zakotga tortiladi, chunki ularning aktivlari sanoat va biznesga kiritilgan o'sib boruvchi mablag'lar hisoblanadi, ulushlarni savdo qiluvchilar va ularni saqlovchilar uchun esa ular faqat savdo tovar zaxirasidir, deb hisoblaydilar.7
Professors Abu Zahrah and his two colleagues consider that since shares are treated like commodities owned by shareholders, corporations are zakatable on their own activities, because their assets are growing assets invested in business and industry, while shares for those who trade shares and hold them are merely trade inventory.7
Ushbu fikrga ko‘ra, korporatsiyalar o‘z daromadlarini taqsimlashdan oldin zakot to‘lashi kerak, aksiyadorlar esa o‘z aksiyalari, shu jumladan olingan dividendlar uchun yana zakot to‘lashlari shart. Bu degani, aksiyadorlar kompaniya daromadidan bir marta, o‘z mulklari va taqsimlangan foydasidan esa yana bir marta zakot berishadi. Zakotda bunday ikki karra to‘lovga Shariat yo‘l qo‘ymaydi. Menimcha, bunday takrorlanishdan qochish uchun bu ikki zakotdan faqat bittasini qo‘llash kerak.
According to this opinion, the corporations should pay zakah on their earnings before distribution, and shareholders must also pay another zakah on their shares, including earned dividends. This means that the shareholders are zakated once on the earnings of the company and once on their own assets and distributed profits. This kind of duplication in zakah is prevented in Shari’ah. I believe that only one of these two zakahs must be applied in order to avoid such duplication.
Ushbu masalada faqihlarning yozuvlaridan ba'zi misollar keltirish foydali bo'lishi mumkin. Ikkinchi bobda biz o'rgandikki, yaylovda boqiladigan chorva mollaridan zakot farz bo'lishi hammaning ittifoqi bilan tasdiqlangan. Chorva savdogarlari chorva mollarini savdo tovari sifatida olganda esa, ular faqat chorva mollari stavkasi bo'yicha yoki savdo tovari stavkasi bo'yicha zakotlanadi, ammo aniq bir vaqtning o'zida ham savdo tovari, ham yaylovdagi chorva sifatida ikki marta emas.
It may be useful to give some examples from jurists' writings that can shed some light on this matter. We studied in chapter two that zakah is obligated on pastured livestock unanimously, and when livestock is obtained as business inventory by livestock merchants, it is only zakated either at the rate of livestock or at the rate of business inventory, but definitely not twice as business inventory and pastured livestock at the same time.
Ibn Qudamah shu haqda quyidagicha bayon qiladi:
Ibn Qudamah discusses the difference in their treatment as following:
Malik va al-Shofeʼiyning yangi fikriga ko‘ra, bu chorva mollari chorva zakotining stavkasi bo‘yicha zakot to‘lanishi kerak, chunki chorva zakoti kuchliroqdir: u bo‘yicha ittifoq bor va hadislarda nomi bilan zikr qilingan. Boshqa tomondan, Abu Hanifa, as-Savriy va Ahmad esa uni savdo mollari sifatida zakot to‘lanishi kerak deydilar, chunki bu zakot mutanosib bo‘lishi bilan birga zakot oluvchilarga ko‘proq foyda keltiradi. Agar savdogarning chorva mollari soni qiymati bo‘yicha savdo nisobiga yetsa, lekin soni bo‘yicha chorva nisobiga yetmasa, savdo mollari zakoti shubhasiz qo‘llanadi. ... Ammo ikki turdagi zakotni birgalikda majburiy qilish mumkin emas, chunki bu takrorlanishga olib keladi, Payg‘ambar ﷺning "Sadaqada takror yo‘q" degan hadisiga muvofiq esa u qochilishi kerak.9
Malik and the new opinion of al Shafi'i say this livestock must be zakated at the rate applied to livestock on the grounds that zakah on livestock is stronger, being unanimously agreed upon and mentioned by name in the sayings. On the other hand, Abu Hanifah, al Thawri, and Ahmad say it must be zakated as trade assets because this zakah gives more benefits to the zakah recipients in addition to being proportional. If the number of livestock held by the merchant reaches, in value, nisab of business, but does not reach in number the nisab of livestock, zakah on trade assets applies indisputably.8 . . but it is impossible to obligate the two kinds of zakah together, because this leads to duplication, which must be avoided in accordance with the saying of the Prophet (p), "No duplication in sadaqah."9
Agar chorvadagi nisobi (40 ta qo'y) to'lsa, lekin tijorat mollarining nisobi (200
If nisab of livestock (40 sheep) is fulfilled, while the nisab of business assets (200
dirhamlar) bo'lmasa, zakot savdo qilish uchun ushlab turilmayotgandek, chorva mollariga qo'llaniladigan miqdorda vojib bo'ladi.
dirhams) is not, zakah becomes obligated at the rate applied on livestock, as if they were not being held for trading.
Muallif al-Mug'niy yana bir misol keltiradi: tijorat uchun sotib olingan yer yoki palma daraxtlari haqida. Lekin ularni tovar sifatida saqlab turgan paytda yerda dehqonchilik qilingan yoki daraxtlardan hosil yig'ilgan. Agar tijorat zakot yili hosil yig'ish vaqtida tugasa va yer va/yoki daraxtlarning qiymati nisobga teng bo'lsa, ekin va meva uchun zakot o'ntadan bir yoki beshdan bir stavkada to'lanishi kerak, yer va daraxtlar uchun esa 2,5 foiz stavkada zakot to'lanishi ham lozim. Bu Abu Hanifa va Abu Savr fikriga ko'ra shunday. Qozi va uning hanbaliy hamkasblari esa yer va ekin butunlay tijorat aktivlari stavkasida zakotlanishi kerak, chunki ularning barchasi tijorat tovari hisoblanadi, deyishadi. Ibn Qudama birinchi fikr ko'proq daromad beradi va shuning uchun kambag'allar uchun afzal, deb dalil keltiradi hamda bu holat chorva molining tovar sifatidagi holatidan farq qiladi, chunki chorva molining stavkasi baribir tijorat tovaridagi stavkadan past, deydi.19 Unga shunday javob berish mumkinki, zakot daromadini oshirish o'zi yetarli sabab emas, chunki zakot to'lovchilar uchun ham adolatli va ko'tara oladigan yuk belgilash maqsad qilingan. Islomning adolati shundaki, yuqori stavka — o'ntadan bir — faqat daromadga qo'llaniladi, asosiy mablag'ga qo'llanilganda esa stavka tijorat aktivlaridagidek 2,5 foiz bo'ladi.
The author of al Mughni gives another example, the case of palm trees or land purchased for resale, but while held as inventory, the land was farmed, or the trees harvested. If the zakah year of business ends at the time of harvest, and the value of the land and/or trees equal nisab, then zakah on crops and fruits must be paid at the rate of ten percent or five percent, and zakah on the lot and trees must also be paid at the rate of 2.5%. This is according to Abu Hanifah and Abu Thawr. Al Qadi and his Hanbalite colleagues say that land and crops must totally be zakated at the rate of business assets, because all are considered business inventory. Ibn Qudamah argues that the first opinion gives more proceeds and is thus better for the poor and claims that this case is different from the case of livestock as inventory, since the rate of livestock is anyway below that on trade inventory.19 One can reply that increasing the proceeds of zakah is not reason enough since zakah aims at providing a just and bearable burden on payers as well. The justice of Islam is featured in applying the high rate of one-tenth only on the return, while when zakah applies on the principal, the rate is 2.5 percent, as in business assets.
Bir xil asl mablag‘ga va uning daromadiga ikki xil stavkani birgalikda qo‘llash mumkinligi ma’lum emas. Bir yilda zakotning ikki xil shaklidan birini tanlash zarur, shunda ikki marta hisoblash yoki bir yilda bir necha zakot to‘lashdan saqlanish mumkin bo‘ladi.
It is not known that two rates can be applied together on the same principal and on its return. It is imperative to select one of the two forms of zakah in order to avoid duplication or payment of more than one zakah in the same year.
Argumentning, ya'ni yuqorida keltirilgan misollarda zakotning ikkita sababi, ya'ni savdo va dehqonchilik bor, degan fikri to'g'ri emas, chunki ularning faqat biri dastlab nazarda tutilgan edi. Ikkinchisi tasodifan paydo bo'lgan, ammo zakotning faqat bitta shakli qo'llanishi kerak. Bu masalani Sharh al-G'oya muallifi, hanbaliy mazhabidagi olim o'rganadi va u shunday deydi: "Faqat savdo maqsadida nisob miqdorida yaylovdagi chorva mollariga ega bo'lgan kishi, chorva nisobining yili savdo nisobiga yetishdan oldin tugagan bo'lsa ham, faqat savdo mollariga nisbatan zakot to'laydi, chunki zaxira sifatida saqlash niyati uni chorva molining ta'rifidan chiqaradi." Xuddi shu asosda u, savdo uchun zaxira sifatida saqlangan yer, o'z hosili yoki mevasi bilan birga, savdo mollariga qo'llaniladigan zakot shaklida zakot to'lanishini aytadi, chunki ekin va meva egasi mavjud zaxirasining aniq ortishidir. Ammo agar umumiy qiymat 200 dirhamga yetmasa, mevaning o'zi esa o'z nisobiga, yoki chorva molı o'z nisobiga yetsa, ular o'z holatlariga alohida qo'llanadigan zakotga tortilishi kerak, shunda zakot umuman bekor qilinmasligi lozim.11
The argument that in the above-mentioned examples there are two reasons for zakah, namely, trade and agriculture, is not valid, because only one of them was originally intended. The other came incidentally, but only one form of zakah must apply. This is taken up by the author of Sharh al Ghayah, a Hanbalite, who says "A person who owns nisab of pastured livestock for the purpose of trading only is subject to zakah on trade assets alone, even if the year of nisab of livestock ends before nisab of business is reached, since the intention of holding inventory removes the description as holding livestock." By the same token, he argues that land held as inventory for trade is zakatable along with its crops or fruits at the form of zakah applied to trade assets, because crops and fruits at the form of zakah are clearly an increase in the inventory the owner had. But if the total does not reach 200 dirhams, while the fruit alone reaches their own nisab, or the livestock reaches its nisab, they must be subject to zakah applied on their own cases, so that zakah may not be waived at all.11
Ibn Hazm keltirgan al-Hasan bin Hay: "Savdo uchun ekiladigan narsaga savdo zakoti beriladi, boshqa hech narsa emas."12 Al-Kosoniy aytadi: "Hanafiy mazhabidagi hamkasblarimiz aytadilar: 'Savdo uchun sotib olingan ushriy yoki xarojiy yer faqat ushr yoki xaroj bilan mukallaf bo'ladi, savdo zakoti esa xaroj yoki ushr bilan birga vojib bo'lmaydi.' Bu ularning mashhur qarashidir. Muhammad (rahimahulloh)ning aytishicha, u ushr yoki xarojni savdo zakoti bilan birga vojib qilgan, ya'ni yerning qiymatiga savdo zakoti, ekinga esa ushr, agar bu ikki alohida mulk deb hisoblansa. Bunga sabab shuki, savdo zakoti yerga, dehqonchilik zakoti esa ekinga vojib bo'ladi; shu sababli bitta mulkka ikki zakot solinmaydi."13
Ibn Hazm quotes al Hasan bin Hay, "What is farmed for business is subject to zakah on business, and nothing else."12 Al Kasani says that "Our colleagues, the Hanafites, say 'ushri or kharaji land purchased for trade is only subject to 'ushr or kharaj, and zakah on trade may not be obligated at the same time as kharaj or 'ushr. This is their well-known opinion. Muhammad is said to have obligated 'ushr or kharaj along with zakah on trade, i.e. zakah of trade on the value of the land, and 'ushr on the crops, assuming these are two different properties. The rationale behind this is that trade's zakah is obligated on the land while agriculture's zakah is obligated on the crops; thus no two zakahs are charged to the same asset.13
Men zakot ikki shakldan faqat bittasini qo'llash kerak, deb hisoblayman va zakotda ikki karra to'lashga ruxsat berish to'g'ri emas, ayrim hanafiylar va boshqalarning odatdagi qarashi bo'lganidek. Ikki shakldan qaysi birini tanlash kerakligiga kelsak, bu masala zakot idorasiga yoki zakot to'lovchiga havola etilishi kerak deb o'ylayman, chunki bu ikki yo'nalishning har birining o'z sabablari bor. Shuni eslash lozimki, musulmon faqihlarining ko'pchiligi, ehtimol ularning hammasi, bir xil mol-mulkka zakotni ikki karra solishni ma'qullamaydi, garchi ayrim hollarda, yuqorida zikr etilgan Muhammad misolida bo'lganidek, bunga qarshi chiqqanlarni ham uchratamiz.
I believe only one of the two forms of zakah must be applied, and that it is not correct to allow duplication in zakah, as is the common view of the Hanafites and others. As for which of the two forms of zakah should be selected. I think this should be left to the zakah administration or the zakah payer, each of these two alternatives has its reasons. We must recall that the bulk of Muslims jurists, perhaps all of them, do not approve of any duplication of zakah on the same asset, although in certain instances, we find some 'who disagree, such as the above-mentioned case of Muhammad.