Al-Khattobiy aytishicha, sunniylarning ko‘pchiligi savdo mollariga zakot farz bo‘lishi fikrida, faqat zohiriy mazhabining ba’zi so‘nggi faqihlari bundan mustasno. Ibn Hazm “al-Muhalla” asarida shu qarashni qabul qiladi.37 Zakotni cheklashga moyilligi bilan tanilgan ba’zi olimlar, jumladan, ash-Shavkoniy va Siddiq Hasan Xon ham shu qarashni qo‘llab-quvvatlaydi. Ularning dalillarini quyidagi nuqtalarda jamlash mumkin:
According to al Khattabi, Sunnites are generally of the opinion that zakah is obligatory on trade assets,36 except for a few late jurists of the Zahiri school. Ibn Hazm in his al Muhalla adopts this view.37 Some scholars known for their inclination to restrict zakah, such as al Shawkani and Siddiq Hasan Khan support this view too. Their arguments can be summarized in the following points:
Birinchidan, ular hadislarga tayanadilar: "Musulmonlarga o'z qullari va otlari uchun zakot majburiy emas" hamda "Men sizlarni qullar va otlar uchun sadaqadan ozod qildim". Bu so'zlarning zohiriy ma'nosi shuki, bu ikki narsa uchun zakot bekor qilingan, ular savdo mollari bo'ladimi yoki yo'qmi, farqi yo'q. Jumhur ulamoning javobi shundan iboratki, bu ikki hadisni o'rganish shuni ko'rsatadiki, ular uy xizmatidagi qullar va shaxsiy transport uchun ishlatiladigan otlar uchun zakotni bekor qiladi. Ikkalasi ham zakotdan ozod bo'lishi bir ovozdan tan olingan ehtiyojlarga xizmat qiladi.
Firstly, they draw on the hadiths, "No zakah is obligated on Muslims on their slaves and horses," and I have exempted you from sadaqah on horses and slaves."38 The literal meaning of these sayings is that zakah is waived for these two items, whether or not they are trade inventory. The reply of scholars in the majority camp is that studying these two sayings indicates that they waive zakah on slaves in household service and horses used for personal transportation. Both serve needs that are unanimously exempt from zakah.
Ikkinchidan, ular asosiy qoida sifatida Qur'on yoki Sunnat orqali Allohdan aniq dalil bo'lmasa, musulmonning molidan hech qanday qismini olish man etilgan, deb ta'kidlaydilar. Payg'ambar ﷺ davrida ham savdo-sotiq qilingan, savdoga zakot majburiy qilinganini bildiruvchi biror to'g'ri rivoyat esa yo'q. Samura va Abu Zarr (roziyallohu anhumo) dan keltirilgan so'zga kelsak, ularning sanadi zaif bo'lgani uchun zakotni majburiy qilishga dalil sifatida ishlatib bo'lmaydi, deb dalil keltiradilar.39
Secondly, they argue that in principle it is forbidden to take any part of a Muslim's wealth without clear evidence from God through Qur'an or Sunnah. Trade was practiced in the time the Prophet (p) and there is no correct report obligating zakah on trade. As for the saying from Samurah and Abu Dharr, the argument is that they are weak and must not be used as evidence for obligating zakah.39
Javob shu da'voga shundaki, umumiylik jihatidan barcha mollarga zakot farz qiladigan bir qancha oyatlar va hadislar mavjud. Qoida shuki, umumiy matn boshqa matn bilan cheklanmasa, cheklanmaydi, va bunday cheklovchi matn yo'q. Bundan tashqari, savdo mollariga zakot farz ekanligiga Qur'on, Sunnat, sahobalarning so'zlari va e'tirof etilgan olimlarning ijmo'idan aniq dalillarimiz bor.
The answer to this claim is that there are several verses and sayings that obligate, by virtue of their generality, zakah on all assets. The rule is that a general text must not be restricted except by another text, and there is no such restricting text. Furthermore, we have specific evidence to the effect that zakah is obligated on trade assets from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Companions' sayings, and ijma' of recognized people of knowledge.
Samuraning so'zini Abu Dovud ham, al-Munziriy ham tanqid qilmagan. Ibn Abdul Barr uni yaxshi (hasan) deb baholagan, marhum Ahmad Shokir esa bu haqda shunday deydi: "Uning roviylari ma'lum bo'lib, Ibn Hayyon tomonidan ishonchli deb tasniflangan." Abu Zarrning so'zini al-Hokim to'g'ri deb belgilagan; al-Hofiz unga bir nechta isnodni keltiradi va ulardan birini yaxshi deb belgilaydi.
The saying of Samurah is not criticized by Abu Daud and al Mundhiri. It is graded good by Ibn 'Abd al Barr, and the late Ahmad Shakir says of it, "Its narrators are known and classified as trustworthy by Ibn Hayyan." The saying of Abu Dharr is marked correct by al Hakim; al Hafiz mentions several chains for it and marks one of them as all right.
Bu gaplar asosiy matnlarning umumiy mazmuni, sahobalarning amallari va ijmo' bilan, shuningdek qiyos va aql-mulohaza bilan qo'llab-quvvatlanadi.
These sayings are supported by the generalities of the main texts, the actions of the Companions, and the ijma' in addition to analogy and reasoning.
Thirdly, Abu 'Ubaid mentions that some jurists claim zakah is not obligatory on trade inventory on the grounds that zakah must always be paid out of the asset itself, and in the case of trade merchandise, all scholars accept payment on the basis of value. Abu 'Ubaid continues, "This is an error in judgement, because we know in the tradition of the Messenger of God ﷺ that zakah obligated on one kind of asset may be paid in the form of another kind. For example, in the Prophet's ﷺ letter to Mu'adh about jizya is written 'one each person who is past puberty, there is a due of one dinar, or its value in clothes.'40 Also, part of the Prophet's ﷺ treaty with the people of Najran reads 'they are obliged to give two thousand pieces of clothes every year, or their equivalent in silver.' 'Umar accepted camels as jizya payment, while its levy was in gold and silver, and 'Ali accepted ropes and needles in payment of jizya. It is also reported from Mu'adh that he took merchandise in the place of zakah. He said, 'Bring me clothes and men's wear; I accept it in payment of sadaqah, since it might be easier for you and more beneficial to the migrants in Madinah.' Ibn Mas'ud's wife, it is reported, said to him, 'I have a necklace that weighs twenty mithqal.' He replied, 'Pay five dirhams on it.' (One mithqal is worth ten dirhams.) Abu 'Ubaid notes that in all these examples, dues are levied on certain items and collected in the form of another. This negates the statement that zakah must be waived if it cannot be paid in the form of the same zakatable item. As for trade merchandise, zakah may be collected in kind unless such collection harms the asset by forcing the division of the indivisible, in which case the value should be designated and zakah is then paid in value. Muslims agree on the zakatability of trade merchandise, and its opponents are not known as people of knowledge." Biroq, zakot bu narsalarga, ular savdo tovarlari bo‘lishdan to‘xtab, shaxsiy yoki oilaviy foydalanish uchun ajratilganda, majburiy bo‘lmaydi. Bu oilaviy transport uchun ishlatiladigan tuya va sigirlardan zakot olinmasligiga o‘xshaydi. Savdo mollari, xuddi chorva kabi, o‘sish, almashinuv va foyda uchun mo‘ljallangan bo‘lib, shu sababli ulardan zakot olinadi. Chorvadagi zakotning miqdori belgilab qo‘yilgan, savdo mollaridagi zakot esa qiymati bo‘yicha baholanadi.41
Thirdly, Abu 'Ubaid mentions that some jurist claim zakah is not obligated on trade inventory on the grounds that zakah must always be paid out of the asset itself, and in the case of trade merchandise, all scholars accept payment on the basis of value. Abu 'Ubaid continues, "This is an error in judgement, because we know in the tradition of the Messenger of God (p) that zakah obligated on one kind of asset may be paid in the form of another kind. For example, in the Prophet's letter to Mu'adh about jiziah is written "one each person who is past puberty, there is a due of one dinar, on its value is clothes."40 Also, part of the Prophet's treaty with the people of Najran reads "they are obliged to give two thousand pieces of clothes every year, or their equivalent in silver." 'Umar accepted camels as jiziah payment, while its levy was in gold and silver, and 'Ali accepted ropes and needless in payment of jiziah. It is also reported from Mu'adh that he took merchandise in the place of zakah. He said, "Bring me clothes and men's wear; I accept it in payment of sadaqah, since it might be easier for you and more beneficial to the migrants in Madinah." Ibn Mas'ud's wife, it is reported, said to him, "I have a necklace that weighs twenty mithqal." He replied, "Pay five dirhams on it." (One mithqal is worth ten dirhams.) Abu 'Ubaid notes that in all these examples, dues are levied on certain items and collected in the form of another. This negates the statement that zakah must be waived if it cannot be paid is the form of the same zakated item. As for trade merchandise, zakah may be collected in kind unless such collection harms the asset by forcing the division of the indivisible, in which case the value should be designated and zakah is then paid in value. Muslims agree on the zakatability of trade merchandise, and its opponents are not known as people of knowledge. zakah, however, is not obligated on these items when they cease to be trade inventory on are assigned for personal or household use, similar to the waiver of zakah on camels and cows used for family transportation. Trade assets, like livestock, are designated for growth, exchange, and profit, and as such are zakatable. The ratio or zakah on livestock is given, while zakah on trade is estimated in value.41