5.2. Zakot taalluqli boyliklarning turlari - Nufuzli fuqarolar qo'llanmasi | Quran Course

5.2. Zakot taalluqli boyliklarning turlari - Nufuzli fuqarolar qo'llanmasi | Quran Course

0% read · 4 min left

Nufuzli fuqarolar qo'llanmasi Bookmark

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

5.2. Zakot taalluqli boyliklarning turlari

5.2. The Kinds of Wealth Subject to Zakat

by Ibn Rushd4 min readViewed 127 times

Ular zakot farz bo‘ladigan ba’zi turkumlar haqida kelishib olishgan, boshqalari haqida esa ixtilof qilishgan. Kelishib olingan turkumlarga quyidagilar kiradi: zebu‘ shaklga keltirilmagan ikki turdagi ma’dan, ya’ni oltin va kumush; uch turdagi hayvon, ya’ni tuya, sigir va qo‘y; ikki turdagi don, ya’ni bug‘doy va arpa; hamda ikki turdagi meva, ya’ni xurmo va kishmish. Zaytun borasida esa ba’zi bahs-munozaralar mavjud.

They agreed about some of the categories in which zakat is obligatory and disagreed about others. The categories which they agreed upon include two kinds of minerals, namely, gold and silver that are not moulded into jewelry, three categories of animals, namely, camels, cows and sheep, two categories of grains namely wheat and barley, and two categories of fruit, namely dates and raisins. There is some dispute about olives.

Ular faqat zeb-ziynat shaklidagi oltin haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Chunki Hijoz faqihlari — Molik, al-Lays va ash-Shofe'iy — agar u bezak va taqish uchun niyat qilingan bo'lsa, unga zakot yo'q, deb ta'kidlaganlar. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari esa unga zakot solinishini aytganlar. Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, zeb-ziynat bir tomondan mol-mulk, ikkinchi tomondan esa boshqa barcha narsalar uchun asosan almashinuv vositasi bo'lib xizmat qiladigan oltin va kumushga o'xshashligidadir. Asosiy maqsadi foydalanish bo'lgan mol-mulkka o'xshatganlar, zeb-ziynatda zakot yo'q, dedilar. Asosiy maqsadi almashinuvni osonlashtirish bo'lgan oltin va kumushga o'xshatganlar esa unga zakot solinadi, dedilar. Ularning ixtilofining yana bir sababi bu masala bo'yicha rivoyatlarning ziddiyatidir. Jobirdan Payg'ambar ﷺ dan rivoyat qilinadi: "Zeb-ziynatda zakot yo'q". Amr ibn Shu'ayb otasidan, u bobosidan rivoyat qiladi: bir ayol qizi bilan Allohning Elchisi ﷺ huzuriga keldi, qizining qo'lida ikkita oltin bilaguzuk bor edi. U ayolga ﷺ dedi: "Bularning zakotini berasizmi?" U: "Yo'q", dedi. U ﷺ dedi: "Qiyomat kuni Alloh sizning qo'llaringizga ikkita olov bilaguzuk taqsa, sizga yoqadimi?" Ayol ularni yechib, Payg'ambar ﷺ oldiga qo'yib dedi: "Ular Alloh va Uning Elchisi uchundir". Ikkala rivoyat ham zaif, ayniqsa Jobir rivoyati.

Ularning hayvonlarga oid ixtilofi ikki xil bo‘lib, uning biri turlar bo‘yicha, ikkinchisi toifalar bo‘yicha ixtilofdir. Turlar bo‘yicha ixtilof otlarga taalluqlidir: jumhur ulamo otlarda zakot yo‘q deydi. Abu Hanifa esa, agar ular erkin otlatilsa va maqsadi zotini ko‘paytirish bo‘lsa, ularda zakot bor, ya’ni ular erkak va urg‘ochi bo‘lsa, deb aytgan. Ixtilofning sababi matnga zid kelgan qiyos hamda bir matnning boshqa matnga zid kelganligi deb hisoblanishidan kelib chiqadi. Ularda zakot yo‘qligini bildiruvchi matn Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning: “Musulmonning otida va qulida sadaqa (zakot) yo‘q”, degan so‘zlaridir. Bu umumiy ma’noga zid keluvchi qiyos shuki, otlarni otlatish maqsadi o‘sish va zotni ko‘paytirishdir, shu sababli ular sigirga va qo‘yga o‘xshaydi. Bu umumiy ma’noga zid deb hisoblangan matn esa Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning otni eslab, unda Alloh haqqini, ya’ni hayvonlarning o‘zida (zakot tortiladigan hayvon sifatida) va ularning mol sifatida o‘sishida ham, unutmagan holdagi so‘zlaridir. Abu Hanifa bu yerda Alloh haqqi ularga zakot to‘lashni anglatadi, deb hisoblagan va bu hukmni ulardan otlatiladiganlariga qo‘llagan. Qozi (Ibn Rushd) shunday degan: “Bu matnni umumiy emas, balki mujmal deb qabul qilgani yaxshiroqdir, shunda u zakot uchun dalil sifatida ishlatilishi mumkin”. Bu masalada Abu Hanifaga uning ikki shogirdi, Abu Yusuf va Muhammad qarshi chiqqan. Shu bilan birga, Umar, Alloh undan rozi bo‘lsin, ulardan zakot olgani sobit bo‘lgan. Shu sababli, bu ish to‘lovchilarning ixtiyoriy hissasi sifatida qilingan, deyiladi.

Their disagreement over animals includes their dispute over species and their dispute over categories. The disagreement about species relates to horses, as the majority maintain that there is no zakat in horses. Abu Hanifa maintained that if they pasture freely and their purpose is breeding there is zakat on them, that is, when they are male and female. The reason for the disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with the text as well as what is believed to be a conflict of one text with another. The text implying that there is no zakat on them is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is no sadaqa (zakat) for a Muslim on his horse and on his slave”. The analogy that conflicts with this general meaning is that the purpose (of keeping) pasturing horses is growth and breeding because of which they resemble cows and sheep. The text that is assumed to conflict with this general meaning is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when “he mentioned horse and did not forget the right of Allah in the horses themselves [as animals subject to zakat], as well as in their growth as wealth”. Abu Hanifa held that the right of Allah here means the payment of zakat on them, and this is to be applied to the pasturing horses among them. The Qadi (Ibn Rushd) said: “It is better if this text is treated as unelaborated (mujmal) rather than general, so that it may be used as an argument for zakat'. Abu Hanifa was opposed by his two disciples, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad on this issue. It is, however, established from TJmar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he used to assess zakat on them. It is, therefore, said that this was done as a voluntary contribution by the payees.

Ixtilofning sababi mutlaq ma'no bilan muqayyad ma'noning, shuningdek qiyos bilan matnning umumiy ma'nosi o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Mutlaq ma'no Payg'ambar ﷺ ning "Qirq qo'yning har biridan bitta qo'y (zakot sifatida berilади)" degan hadislarida bor. Muqayyad ma'no esa Payg'ambar ﷺ ning "Yaylovda boqiladigan qo'ylarda zakot bor" degan hadislarida bor. Mutlaq ma'noni muqayyad ma'nodan ustun qo'yganlar yaylovda boqiladigan va boqilmaydigan hayvonlarning ikkalasida ham zakot bor deyishgan, muqayyad ma'noga ustunlik bergan kishilar esa zakot faqat yaylovda boqiladigan hayvonlardan olinadi deyishgan. Ixtilofning sababini matnning ishorat yo'li bilan ko'rsatilgan ma'nosi (dalil al-xitob) bilan umumiy ma'no o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqqan deb ham aytish mumkin. Payg'ambar ﷺ ning "Yaylovda boqiladigan qo'ylarda zakot bor" degan so'zidan ishorat yo'li bilan, yaylovda boqilmaydigan qo'ylarda zakot yo'q degan ma'no chiqadi. Payg'ambar ﷺ ning "Qirq qo'yning har biridan bitta qo'y" degan so'zining umumiy ma'nosi esa, yaylovda boqiladigan qo'ylar boqilmaydigan qo'ylar bilan bir xil hukmda ekanligini bildiradi. Lekin umumiy ma'no (qoida bo'yicha) matnning ishorat yo'li bilan ko'rsatilgan ma'nosidan kuchliroqdir, xuddi muqayyad ma'noning mutlaq ma'nodan ustunligi yaxshiroq ma'lum bo'lganidek. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm esa mutlaq ma'no muqayyad ma'noni hokim qilishini, qo'y yaylovda boqilsa ham, boqilmasa ham, unda zakot borligini aytgan. Payg'ambar ﷺ ning "Besh tuyadan kam bo'lsa, unda sadaqa yo'q" degan so'zi sababli tuyada ham shunday deydi. Sigirlar haqida esa rivoyat bo'lmagani uchun, faqat yaylovda boqiladigan sigirlardan zakot olinadi degan ijmo'ga tayanish kerak deydi. Shunday qilib, sigirlarning boshqalardan ajratilishi bu uchinchi qarashga aylanadi.

The reason for their disagreement comes from the conflict of an absolute meaning with a qualified meaning, and the conflict of analogy with the general implication of a text. The absolute meaning is in the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “In forty sheep is [the zakat of] one sheep”. The qualified meaning is in the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “On pasturing sheep there is zakat”. Those who gave predominance to the absolute implication over the qualified said that there is zakat in pasturing as well as non-pasturing (animals), while those who gave predominance to the qualified meaning said zakat is levied on the pasturing animals alone. It is possible to say that the reason for disagreement stems also from the conflict of the indirect indication of the text (dalil al- khitab) with the general implication. The indirect indication of the text in the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “On pasturing sheep there is zakat”, implies that there is no zakat on a non-pasturing sheep, while the general meaning in the saying of the Prophet, “In forty sheep is one sheep”, implies that pasturing sheep here have the same status as the non pasturing sheep, but the general meaning (as a rule) is stronger than the indirect indication of the text, just as the predominance of the qualified meaning over the absolute meaning is better known. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, however, held that the absolute meaning governs the qualified meaning, and that on sheep, pasturing or non-pasturing, there is zakat, so also on camels, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is no sadaqa on what is less than five camels”, and as there is no established tradition about cows it is necessary to rely upon consensus which says that zakat is levied on pasturing cows alone. Thus, with the distinction of cows from the rest this becomes a third opinion.

Sabab ihtilofining ikkinchi qismi, ya'ni zakot to'g'risidagi kelishilgan turlar bilan cheklaganlar va uni saqlanadigan oziq-ovqatga kengaytirganlar o'rtasidagi ixtilof, ularning ushbu to'rt turdagi zakot o'z moddasiga xosmi yoki ular ifodalagan asosiy illatga ko'ramimi, degan masalasidagi tortishuvlariga bog'liqdir. Ular oziq-ovqat sifatida ishlatilishini illat deb hisoblaganlar, zakotni barcha turdagi oziq-ovqatgacha kengaytirganlar. Oziq-ovqat bilan cheklaganlar va yerdan chiqqan barcha narsalarga, konsensus bilan istisno qilingan o'tlar, yog'och va qamish kabilardan tashqari, kengaytirganlar o'rtasidagi ixtilof esa umumiy matn bilan qiyos ziddiyatiga asoslangan. Umumiylikni ifodalovchi matn Payg'ambar ﷺning so'zidir: "Osmon suvi bilan sug'orilgan yerdagi hosilda ushr bor, chelak bilan sug'orilgandan esa yarim ushr bor". "Ma" (nima) so'zi "alladhi" kabi nisbiy olmosh bo'lib, umumiylikni bildiradi. Yana bir umumiylikni anglatuvchi matn Ulug' Zotning so'zlaridir: "U shunday Zotki, shiypon bilan va shiypon-siz bog'lar, xurmo daraxti, turli xil ta'mdagi ekinlar, zaytun va anor yaratdi — bir-biriga o'xshash va o'xshamagan. Ular meva berganda undan yenglar va yig'im kuni uning haqqini bering" (6:141). Qiyos esa zakotning maqsadi ehtiyojni yo'qotish ekanligini bildiradi, bu odatda oziq-ovqat orqali amalga oshiriladi. Umumiy ma'noni shu qiyos bilan cheklaganlar oziq-ovqatdan boshqa narsalarga zakotni bekor qildilar, umumiy ma'noga ustunlik bergan kishilar esa konsensus bilan istisno qilinganlardan tashqari, undan boshqa narsalarga ham uni kengaytirdilar.

The reason for disagreement among those who restricted zakat to the categories agreed upon and those who extended it to storable food, is related to their dispute over whether zakat on these four categories is specific to their substance or is due to an underlying cause they represent, which is that they are used as food. Those who maintained that it is for the categories in themselves restricted the obligation to them, and those who said that it is because of the underlying cause that they are food extended the obligation to all kinds of food. The reason for disagreement among those who restricted the obligation to food and those who extended it, to everything produced from land, except those over which there is consensus, like grass, wood, and cane, is based on the conflict of analogy with a general text. The text implying a general application is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is ^ushr in what is watered by the sky, but in that which is irrigated by the watering-can there is one-half of <ushr”. Ma (what), a relative pronoun like the term alladhi, implies generality. The other text implying the general meaning are the words of the Exalted, “He it is Who produceth gardens trellised and untrellised, and the date-palm, and crops of divers flavour, and the olive and the pomegranate, like and unlike. Eat ye of the fruit thereof when it fruiteth, and pay the due thereof upon the harvest day”.193 Analogy implies that the purpose, of zakat is the elimination of need, and this is usually done through what is food. Those who restricted the general meaning with this analogy waived zakat on what is other than food, but those who gave predominance to the general implication extended it to what is besides it, except the things excluded by consensus.

Those who agreed about food differed over certain things with reference to their dispute over whether these are in the category of food, and whether analogy can be constructed upon that which is agreed upon. This is like the disagreement of Malik and al-Shafi'i over olives. Malik upheld the obligation of zakat on them, while al-Shafi'i disallowed this in his later opinion rendered in Egypt. The reason for disagreement is based on their dispute over whether olives are storable food. Of the same nature is the disagreement of Malik's disciples about the obligation of zakat on figs. Some of them held that zakat is to be levied on fruits but not vegetables, and this is the opinion of Ibn Habib, because of the words of the Exalted: "He it is Who produceth gardens trellised and untrellised, and the date-palm, and crops of divers flavour, and the olive and the pomegranate, like and unlike. Eat ye of the fruit thereof when it fruiteth, and pay the due thereof upon the harvest day". Those who distinguished between fruit and olives through the interpretation of the verse have no basis, except a very weak one.

Those who agreed about food differed over certain things with reference to their dispute over whether these are in the category of food, and whether analogy can be constructed upon that which is agreed upon. This is like the disagreement of Malik and al-ShaficT over olives. Malik upheld the obligation of zakat on them, while al-Shafi T disallowed this c in his later opinion rendered in Egypt. The reason for disagreement is based on their dispute over whether olives are storable food. Of the same nature is the disagreement of Malik’s disciples about the obligation of zakat on figs. Some of them held that zakat is to be levied on fruits but not vegetables, and this is the opinion of Ibn Habib, because of the words of the Exalted, “He it is Who produceth gardens trellised and untreliised, and the date-palm, and crops of divers flavour, and the olive and the pomegranate, like and unlike. Eat ye of the fruit thereof when it fruiteth, and pay the due thereof upon the harvest day”.194 Those who distinguished between fruit and olives through the interpretation of the verse have no basis, except a very weak one.

Они согласились в том, что закят не обязателен на имущество (движимое имущество, включая рабов), которое не предназначено для торговли, но разошлись во мнениях относительно обязательности закята на имущество, используемое в торговле. Правоведы провинций поддерживали обязанность его уплаты, а захириты отвергали её. Причина их разногласия возникает из их спора об установлении закята путём аналогии, а также из их спора о достоверности хадиса Самуры ибн Джундуба, который сказал: «Посланник Аллаха ﷺ велел нам выделять закят с товаров, которые мы включали в торговлю». Также передаётся от Пророка ﷺ, что он сказал: «Платите закят с пшеницы». Аналогия, на которую опирается большинство, состоит в том, что товары, приобретённые для торговли, имеют целью приращение и потому напоминают три вида, с которых закят взимается по единодушному мнению, то есть урожай, скот и золото с серебром. Ат-Тахави считал, что закят с товаров установлен со слов Умара и Ибн Умара, и никто из сподвижников не возразил им. Некоторые полагали, что такая ситуация равнозначна согласию сподвижников, то есть когда мнение передаётся от одного из них, и ничего не передаётся от другого сподвижника против него, но это мнение слабое.

They agreed that there is no zakat on goods (chattel includes slaves) that are not intended for trade, but they disagreed about the imposition of zakat on goods that are employed in trade. The jurists of the provinces upheld its obligation, but the Zahirites disallowed it. The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute about the imposition of zakat ’through analogy, and also their dispute over the authenticity of the tradition of Samura ibn Jundub, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to order us to set aside zakat on goods that we included in trade”. It is also related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “Pay zakat on wheat”. The analogy on which the majority relied is that the goods acquired for trade have growth as their purpose and therefore resemble the three species on which zakat is levied by agreement, that is, crops, cattle, and gold and silver. Al-TahawT believed that zakat on goods is established from TJmar and from Ibn TJmar and none of the Companions opposed them. Some thought that such a situation amounts to a consensus of the Companions, that is, when an opinion is transmitted from one of them, and nothing is transmitted from another Companion against it, but this is weak.