Zakot bir xil zakot mollaridan chiqariladi (tuyalardan tuyalar, mevalardan mevalar, pulдан pul) degan savol tug‘iladi: zakot o‘rniga uning qiymatini, ya’ni naqd qiymatini berish joizmi? Bir tomonda, qiymat bilan to‘lashni hech qanday cheklovsiz ruxsat etuvchi faqihlar bor. Ularga Hanafiylar boshchilik qiladi. Shofi’iylar va Zohiriylar boshchiligidagi olimlar qiymat bilan to‘lashni qabul qilmaydilar. Ular o‘rtasida esa Molikiylar va Hanbaliylar ayrim hollarda qiymat bilan to‘lashni qabul qiladilar, boshqa hollarda esa uni ma’qullamaydilar.

Since zakah is calculated in the same zakated items (camels are taken out of camels, fruits from fruits, and money from money) the question arises whether it is permissible to give the value of what is due as zakah instead of payment in kind. On one side, we find jurists who allow payment in value without any reservations. These are led by the Hanafites. Scholars led by the Shafi'ites and Zahirites do not accept payment in value. In between, Malikites and Hanbalites accept payment in value in certain cases, and do not approve of it in other cases.

It is maintained in Mukhtasar Khalil that payment in value does not suffice. Ibn al Hajib and Ibn Bashir go along with this view. The author of al Tawdih states that this is not consistent with al Mudawwanah, in which it is stated that payment in value is undesired only. Ibn Naji in Sharh al Risalah quotes Ashhab and Ibn al Qasim saying that payment in value is permissible. The author of al Mudawwanah notes, "I would think payment in value would be accepted by God if the payer is obligated to do so by the government, since in disputed matters, the government's selected practice becomes binding on all."3

It is maintained in Mukhtasar Khalil that payment in value does not suffice. Ibn al Hajib and Ibn Bashir go along with this view. The author of al Tawdih states that this is not consistent with al Mudawwanah, in which it is stated that payment in value is undesired only.1 Ibn Naji in Sharh al Risalah quotes Ashhab and Ibn al Qasim saying that payment in value is permissible.2 The author of al Mudawwanah notes, "I would think payment in value would be accepted by God if the payer is obligated to do so by the government, since in disputed matters, the government's selected practice becomes binding on all."3

Hanbaliylar haqida aytadigan bo'lsak, "al-Mug'niy" muallifi Ahmad rahmatullohi alayhning qarashi qiymat bilan to'lovni qabul qilmaslik bo'lganini bildiradi, chunki bu Sunnatga xilof hisoblanadi. Biroq, Ahmad buni ma'qullagani haqida rivoyat bor, faqat fitr zakoti bundan mustasno.

As for Hanbalites, the author of al Mughni says it appears that Ahmad believes payment in value unsatisfactory because it is a violation of Sunnah. However, there is a report that Ahmad approves of it, except with zakah of al fitr.

Bu farqlarning barchasi fiqh olimlarining zakotga qanday qarashlaridan kelib chiqadi: ular zakotni ibodat sifatida ko'radimi yoki boylik ustidagi soliq sifatida. Naqd to'lovni talab qiladiganlar, zakot ibodat bo'lgani uchun u sunnatlarda tasvirlangan aynan shu tarzda, ya'ni zakot beriladigan o'sha narsaning o'zi bilan ado etilishi kerak deb ta'kidlaydilar. Boshqa tomondan, Abu Hanifa, uning shogirdlari va boshqalar qiymat bilan to'lashga ruxsat beradilar, chunki kambag'alni ehtiyojidan xalos etish nuqtai nazaridan bu farq qilmaydi, deb asoslaydilar.5

All these differences can be attributed to the different angles from which jurists perceive zakah as either a worship or a tax on wealth. Those who require payment in kind argue that since zakah is a worship, it can only be done the very same way detailed in the sayings, therefore payment must be made in the same zakated item. On the other hand, Abu Hanifah, his disciples, and others allow payment in value on the grounds that it makes no difference as far as relieving the poor is concerned.5

Qiymat bilan to‘lovni ma’qullamaydiganlar quyidagi dalillarni keltiradilar:

Those who do not approve payment in value bring forth the following arguments:

1. Shofe'iy mazhabidagi al-Juvayniy shunday deydi: zakot ibodat turlaridan biri bo'lgani uchun uni bizga buyurilgan aynan shu tarzda ado etish kerak, chunki Uning qanday ibodat qilinishini istashini faqat Xudo eng yaxshi biladi. Zakot namozning singlisidir. Namozning shakli yoki tartibiga hech kim o'zgartirish kiritolmaydi; xuddi shu tarzda, hadislarda urg'ochi tuya yoki qo'y berish aytilganda, hech kim pul to'lashi mumkin emas.6

1. Al Juwaini, a Shafi'ite, argues that since zakah is one of the rites of worship it must be done exactly the way we are ordered, because only God knows best the way He wants to be worshiped. Zakah is the sister of prayers. No one can make any change in the format or sequence of prayers, and by the same token, no one may pay money when sayings state pay a female camel or a sheep.6

Bu narsa Molikiy mazhabidan bo'lgan qozi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabiy tomonidan yana ta'kidlanadi, u shunday deydi: "Zakot berishning sinovi shunchaki (bir qismini berib) kamaytirishda amalga oshmaydi."

2. This is further emphasized by the judge Abu Bakr bin al 'Arabi, a Malikite, who says, "The test of paying zakah is not realized in mere reduction (by giving away some)

"...umumiy boylikdan emas — Abu Hanifaning fikricha — balki zakot beriladigan har bir mol-mulk turining miqdorini kamaytirishni talab qiladi. Bu esa to'lovchining o'ziga tegishli har bir narsaga bo'lgan hissiy bog'lanishini uzish uchun qilinadi. Natura shaklida to'lash o'z-o'zidan vojibdir."7

of total wealth - - as Abu Hanifah thinks - - but requires reducing the quantity of each and every item of zakatable wealth, in order to break the payer's sentimental attachment to each and every item he or she owns. Payment in kind is obligated on its merit."7

3. Zakot kambag'allarning turli ehtiyojlarini qondirishga qaratilgani uchun, to'lanadigan mol-mulk turlarining xilma-xilligi kambag'allar uchun muhim qulaylikdir. Shuningdek, bu Allohning ne'matlariga shukr va minnatdorlik belgisidir, chunki zakot to'lovchiga Alloh ato etgan aynan o'sha mol-mulkdan boshqalarga berilmoqda.8

3. Since zakah is meant to relieve the diverse needs of the poor, diversity of assets paid is an important convenience for the poor. It is also a sign of thankfulness and gratitude to God to give others from the very same assets He bestowed on the payer.8