Ko‘pchilik oltin, kumush va chorva mollaridan zakot majburiyati uchun hawl — ya’ni bir yil o‘tishini — shart qiladi, chunki bu to‘rt xalifadan sobit bo‘lgan, sahobalar orasida keng ma’lum bo‘lgan, keng amalda qo‘llangan, hamda bunday keng tarqalgan va hech qanday e’tirozsiz amal qilinayotgan narsa, oldin (Payg‘ambardan) biror asos bo‘lmasa, mumkin emas deb hisoblanadi. Ibn Umardan marfu’ rivoyat qilinadi: Payg‘ambar ﷺ dedilar: “Mol-mulkda bir hawl (yil) o‘tmaguncha zakot yo‘q”. Bu masalada viloyatlardagi fuqahalar bir ovozdan kelishganlar. Birinchi avlodda bu borada ixtilof bo‘lmagan, faqat Ibn Abbos va Mu‘aviyadan rivoyat qilinganidan tashqari. Ixtilofning sababi shuki, bu masalada sobit hadis yo‘q. Shu mavzuda ular sakkizta mashhur masalada ixtilof qilganlar. Birinchi masala: agar ma’danlarda zakot miqdori o‘ndan birning to‘rtdan biri deb hisoblansa, ularga ham hawl shart qilinadimi yo‘qmi. Ikkinchi masala: kapitaldan olingan foydada hawlni e’tiborga olish. Uchinchi masala: zakotga tortiladigan narsalarning ortishiga hawl o‘tishi. To‘rtinchi masala: agar qarzlardan zakot olinadi deb hisoblansa, ularda hawlni e’tiborga olish. Beshinchi masala: agar tovarlarda zakot bor deb hisoblansa, ularda hawlni e’tiborga olish. Oltinchi masala: chorva mollaridan olinadigan foydadagi hawl. Yettinchi masala: qo‘y bolalaridagi hawl, agar ular onalariga qo‘shiladi deb hisoblansa — yo nisobni to‘ldirish onalarda bo‘lishi shart deyuvchilar (bular ash-Shofe‘iy va Abu Hanifa)ning fikriga ko‘ra, yoki buni shart qilmaydiganlar (bu Molik fikri)ning fikriga ko‘ra. Sakkizinchi masala: hawl tugamasdan oldin zakotni ajratib qo‘yish joizligi.

The majority stipulates for the obligation of zakat on gold, silver, and cattle, the passage of the hawl, because this is established from the four caliphs, was known widely among, the Companions, was practised widely, and because of their belief that its being so widely known and practised without any opposition is not possible, unless there was an earlier precedent (from the Prophet). It is related from Ibn TJmar from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in a (marfiF) tradition that he. said, “There is no zakat on wealth unless one hawl (year) has passed over it”. This is agreed to unanimously by the jurists of the provinces. There is no disagreement about it in the first generation, except what is related from Ibn Abbas and Mu^awiya.- c The reason for the disagreement is that there is no established tradition about it. In this topic they disagreed about eight well-known issues. The first issue is whether a hawl is to be stipulated for minerals, if we maintain that the amount due on them is one-fourth of a tenth. Second, the consideration of a hawl in the case of profits on capital. Third, the passage of a hawl on the additions to things that are liable to zakat. Fourth, the consideration of the passage of a hawl on loans, if we maintain that zakat is levied on them. Fifth, the consideration of a hawl for goods, if we maintain that there is zakat on them. Sixth, the hawl on the benefits derived from cattle. Seventh, the hawl on the offspring of sheep, if we maintain that they are to be added to the mothers, either according to the opinion of those who stipulate that the mothers should complete the nisab, and these are al-ShaficT and Abu HanTfa, or according to the opinion of those who do not stipulate this, which is Malik’s opinion. Eighth, the permissibility of setting aside zakat prior to the hawl.

Bu masala ma'danlarga taalluqlidir. Imom Shofi'iy ma'danlarda nisob bilan birga havlni ham hisobga olgan, Molik esa nisobni hisobga olgan, ammo havlni hisobga olmagan.

This issue relates to minerals. Al-Shafi T took into account c the hawl as well as the nisab in minerals, while Malik took into account the nisab, but not the hawl.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi shunda ediki, bu mollarning yerdan chiqadigan narsalarga o'xshashligi bilan sotib olingan oltin va kumushga o'xshashligi o'rtasida tebranib turadi. Ularni yerdan chiqadigan narsalarga o'xshash deb bilganlar ularga hawl shartini qo'ymadilar, oltin va kumushga o'xshash deb bilganlar esa hawl shartini qo'ydilar. Oltin va kumush bilan o'xshashlik aniqroqdir, Alloh eng yaxshi biladi.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the vacillation of their resemblance between what is derived from the land and between owned gold and silver. Those who held them to be similar to what is derived from the land did not stipulate a AaW for them, while those who held them to be similar to gold and silver stipulated the hawl. The resemblance with gold and silver is clearer, Allah knows best.

Faqihlar (huquqshunoslar) foyda uchun kapitalning havliga oid uch xil fikrda ixtilof qilganlar. Imom ash-Shofi'iy foydaning havlini u paydo bo'lgan kundan hisoblash kerak, deb aytgan, kapitalning o'zi nisobga yetgan-yetmaganidan qat'i nazar. Bu fikr Umar ibn Abdulaziz'dan ham rivoyat qilingan, u savdodan olinadigan foydaga havl o'tmaguncha zakot majburiy emasligi haqida ko'rsatma bergan. Molik esa foydaning havli kapitalning havli bilan bir xil, ya'ni kapital uchun yil o'tganda foyda ham shu vaqtda zakotga tortiladi, deb aytgan; kapitalning o'zi nisobga yetsinmi yoki foyda qo'shilganidan keyin nisobga yetsinmi, farqi yo'q. Abu Ubayd esa bu fikrga o'z shogirdlaridan boshqa hech bir faqih amal qilmagan, degan. Bir guruh faqihlar esa, havl o'tayotgan kapital o'zi nisobga yetadimi-yo'qmi, shunga qarab farq qilganlar. Agar kapitalning o'zi nisobga yetsa, foyda u bilan birga zakotga tortiladi; agar nisobga yetmasa, unga zakot olinmaydi (foyda qo'shilganidan keyin nisobga yetgan taqdirda ham). Bu fikrda al-Avzoiy, Abu Savr va Abu Hanifa bor. Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, foyda ikki hukm o'rtasida tebranadi: foydalanish natijasida paydo bo'lgan boylik hukmi va kapital hukmi. Foyda paydo bo'ladigan manfaatga o'xshatganlar, u mustaqil ravishda havl o'tishi kerak, deganlar; kapitalga o'xshatganlar esa, u kapital hukmini oladi, deganlar. Ammo shu taqqoslashning shartlaridan biri kapitalga zakot vojib bo'lishi kerakligidir, bu esa nisobga yetmaguncha sodir bo'lmaydi. Shu sababli Molik mazhabida kapitalga foyda haqidagi qiyos zaif hisoblanadi. Ko'rinishicha, Molik (Alloh undan rozi bo'lsin) tayangan narsa foyda bilan qo'ylarning bolasi o'rtasidagi o'xshashlik bo'lgan, ammo qo'y bolasi masalasi ham ixtilofli. Malik'dan ham ko'pchilikning fikriga o'xshash bir fikr rivoyat qilingan.

The jurists disagreed about the hawl for profit on capital holding three opinions. Al-ShafiT held that its hawl is to be calculated from the day it accrues, irrespective of the capital itself amounting to the nisab. This is related from QJmar ibn <Abd al-cAzIz, who gave the instructions that the profits from trade should not be liable for zakat until a hawl has passed. Malik said that the hawl of the profits corresponds with the hawl of the capital, that is, when the year has passed for the capital the profit becomes subject to zakat at the same time, whether the principal amounts to a nisab on its own or reaches the nisab by adding the profits to it. Abu TJbayd said that this was not followed by any of the other jurists, except his own disciples. One group of jurists made the distinction of whether the capital undergoing the hawl amounts to a nisab. They said that if it does amount to the nisab on its own the profit becomes subject to zakat along with it, but if it does not amount to the nisab, zakat is not levied on it (even if it amounts to the nisab by the addition of profits to it). Those who held this opinion include al-AwzacT, Abu Thawr, and Abu HanTfa. The reason for their disagreement arises from the vacillation of profit between the hukm of wealth derived as a benefit and the hukm of the capital. Those who held it to. be similar to an accruing benefit said that it has to independently undergo a hawl, while those who held it to be similar to capital said that it takes the hukm of the capital, except that one of the conditions of such comparison is that zakat should be due on the capital, and this does not happen unless it amounts to the nisab. It is for this reason that the analogy for profit over capital is considered weak in Malik’s school. It appears that what Malik (God be pleased with him) relied upon is the similarity between profit from capital and the offspring of sheep, but the case of the offspring of sheep is also disputed. An opinion like that of the majority is also related from Malik.

Ushbu masala fawatid (qo'shimcha daromadlar) hawli haqida. Ular shunga kelishdilarki, agar mol nisobdan kam bo'lsa va egasiga foydadan boshqa biror qo'shimcha tushsa, shu bilan nisob to'lsa, u holda hawl qo'shimcha tushgan kundan boshlab, butun mol uchun alohida boshlanadi. Ular qachon qo'shimcha egasiga tushishi haqida ixtilof qilishdi, agar uning qo'lida allaqachon hawli to'lgan nisobga teng mol bo'lsa. Molik aytdi: qo'shimcha, agar nisobga yetsa, o'z hawli bo'yicha zakotga tortiladi va hozir zakot vojib bo'lgan molga qo'shilmaydi. Qo'shimchalar haqida xuddi shu fikrni ash-Shofi'iy ham bildirgan. Abu Hanifa, uning shogirdlari va as-Savriy esa aytdilar: barcha qo'shimchalar, agar asl mol nisobga yetsa, asl mol hawli asosida zakotga tortiladi. Ularning nazarida foyda ham xuddi shunday.

This issue deals with the hawl of additions (fawatid)™ They agreed that if the wealth is less than the nisab and some addition other than the profit accrues to the owner thus completing the nisab, then, the hawl is to be commence independently for the total from the day of accrual. They disagreed over when the addition accrues to him when he already has wealth that is equal to the nisab on which the hawl is complete. Malik said that the addition is to be liable for zakat according to its own hawl, if it amounts to the nisab, and it is not to be added to the wealth on which zakat is now due. The same opinion about additions is expressed by al-ShafiH. Abu Hanifa, his disciples, and al-ThawrT said that all additions are to be subjected to zakat on the basis of the hawl of the capital, if that amounts to the nisab. The same is the case for profit in their view.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundaki, yangi qo‘shilgan mol o‘sha mol bo‘lgan mol hukmini oladimi yoki boshqa mol ustiga to‘planmagan mol hukmini oladimi, degan masalada. Qo‘shilgan narsaning hukmi asl, boshqa molga bog‘liq bo‘lmagan mol hukmi, ya’ni zakot vojib bo‘ladigan mol hukmi ekanini aytganlar, qo‘shimchaga zakot yo‘q, dedilar. Unga zakot vojib bo‘ladigan mol hukmini berib, uni nisobga yetadigan mol sifatida bir xil mol deb hisoblaganlar, unga zakot vojib bo‘lgani uchun, uning havlini zakot vojib bo‘ladigan mol havliga muvofiq deb qaraganlar. Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning: “Uning ustidan bir havl o‘tmaguncha mol uchun zakot yo‘q”, degan so‘zlarining umumiy ma’nosi shuni bildiradiki, yangi topilgan molni qo‘l ostidagi molga dalil bo‘lmasa qo‘shmaslik kerak. Abu Hanifa bu masalada mollarni chorva (mavoshi) ustiga qiyos qilgan ko‘rinadi. Uning bu mavzuda tayanadigan usullaridan biri shuki, havl uchun mol qismlarining hammasi yil davomida nisobni tashkil etishi shart emas, yilning ikki chegarasida nisob topilsa va havl molning bir qismida bo‘lsa, kifoya. Shunday qilib, uning nazarida, agar mol havl boshida nisobni tashkil etgan bo‘lsa-yu, keyin uning bir qismi yo‘qolib yoki nobud bo‘lib, nisobdan kam bo‘lib qolsa, lekin havl oxirida unga nisobni to‘ldiradigan qo‘shimchalar bo‘lsa, unga zakot solinadi. Bu holat uning uchun bunday mol turida mavjud, chunki havl hali to‘liq bo‘lmagan, mohiyatan esa mol barcha qismlari bilan bir xil; aslida u ko‘proq, ammo havlning turli bosqichlarida nisobdan tushgan.

Ushbu masala qarzlar (boshqalarga berilgan qarzlar) uchun hawl hisobga olinishi haqida bo'lib, bunda ularga zakot solinadi deb hisoblaymiz. Bir guruh faqihlar aytdiki, qarz berilgan paytdan boshlab uning uchun hawl hisobga olinadi va uning davomida unga zakot solinadi. Agar u bitta hawl davomida bo'lsa, bu bitta hawl uchun; agar bir necha hawl davomida bo'lsa, u holda shuncha hawl uchun hisoblanadi. Ya'ni, agar u bitta hawl bo'lsa, bir marta zakot solinadi; agar bir necha yil davom etsa, shuncha yil uchun zakot solinadi. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar aytdiki, qarzdor kishida qarz bir necha yil turib qolgan bo'lsa ham, unga bitta yil uchun zakot solinadi. Yana bir guruh faqihlar aytdiki, bunga ko'ra hawl kechiktiriladi. Qarz berilgan kundan boshlab qarz sababli hawl kechiktiriladi deganlar qarzga zakot solinishini qabul qilmaganlar, qarz qancha yil qarzdorda qolgan bo'lsa, shuncha yil zakot solinadi deganlar esa qarzni qo'lda turgan mol-mulkka o'xshatish asosida shunday qilganlar. Bitta yil uchun zakot solinadi, qarz bir necha yil qolsa ham, deganlarning dalilini hozircha bilmayman. Chunki qarz qarz bo'lib turganda, unga zakot solinadi ham, solinmaydi ham deyish mumkin. Agar unga zakot yo'q deyilsa, uni muhokama qilishning ma'nosi yo'q; aksincha, boshidan boshlash kerak. Agar unga zakot bo'lsa, u holda hawl unga shart qilinadimi yoki yo'qmi, degan savol tug'iladi. Agar shart qilinsa, yillar sonini hisobga olish majburiy bo'ladi, faqat aytiladigan bo'lsa-chi: har safar hawl to'lganda va qarzdor to'lamagani sababli zakotni to'lay olmasa, bu yil uchun unga qaratilgan majburiy huquq tushib qoladi. Zakot ikki shart bilan vojib bo‘lgani uchun, ya’ni mol-mulkning mavjudligi va hawl (bir yil) ning to‘liq o‘tishi bilan, bu holda faqat oxirgi yil uchun to‘lanishi lozim bo‘lgan zakot qoladi. Malik buni savdo uchun sotib olingan mollarga o‘xshash deb hisoblaydi. Uning fikricha, ular sotilmaguncha, garchi shaxsning qo‘lida bir necha yil turgan bo‘lsa ham, ularga zakot joriy qilinmaydi.

This issue deals with the consideration of the hawl for loans (given to others),202 if we maintain that zakat is levied upon them. A group of jurists said that the hawl is to be considered for it from the time of its commencement (as a loan) imposing zakat on it for its duration. If it is spread over one hawl, then, it is for one hawl, but if it is spread over a number of hawls, then, it is for such a number of hawls. This means that if it is a single hawl a single levy of zakat is imposed, but if it is spread over several years the zakat is levied for such number of years. A group of jurists said that it is to be subjected to zakat for a single year, even if the loan stays outstanding for a number of years with the person who owes the debt. A group of jurists said that the hawl is to be postponed because of it. Those who said that the hawl is to be postponed because of the debt from the day the loan was made, did not uphold the imposition of zakat on a loan, while those who maintained that zakat is to be levied upon it for the number of years it stayed outstanding decided on the basis of the resemblance of a loan with wealth in hand. For those who said that zakat is to be levied on it for a single year even if it stays outstanding for a number of years, I do not know of their reliance at the present moment, because as long as it remains a loan they may either say that zakat is levied on it or they may say that it is not, and if they say that there is no zakat on it then there is no point in discussing it; rather we start all over again. If there is zakat on it, then, the hawl is either stipulated for it or it is not. If we stipulate it, it becomes obligatory to take into account the number of years, unless it is said that each time the hawl is completed and he is not able to pay zakat for it (due to non-payment by the debtor), this obligatory right against him is dropped for that year. As zakat is imposed with two conditions, the presence of the substance of the wealth and the completion of the hawl, then in this case only the zakat due for the last year remains. This is held to by Malik to be similar to goods acquired for trade. In his view, zakat is not to be imposed on them until the person sells them off, even if they remained with him for a number of years.

Bu mollarning zakoti uchun hawl haqida, uning muhokamasi mollar nisobi mavzusi ostida avval o'tgan.

This relates to the hawl for goods and its discussion has preceded under the topic of the nisab for goods.

Ushbu masala chorva mollaridagi foydalarga taalluqlidir. Bu borada Molikning fikri naqd mollardagi holatiga nisbatan teskari. Sababi shundaki, u foydani asl mablag'ga asoslaydi, agar o'sha mablag' nisobga yetsa, xuddi Abu Hanifa dirhamlar va chorva mollaridagi foydalar masalasida qilganidek. Abu Hanifaning foydalar haqidagi fikri shuki, ularga yagona hukm tegishli, ya'ni agar asl mablag' nisobga yetsa, foyda qo'y bo'lsinmi yoki naqd mol bo'lsinmi, o'sha mablag'ga asoslanadi. Uning nazarida foyda va bolalar ko'payishi bir-biriga o'xshash, ya'ni foydaga o'xshaydi. Molik uchun esa foyda va bolalar ko'payishi yagona hukmga ega, lekin u naqd mollardagi foydalar bilan chorva mollaridagi foydalarni farqlaydi. Imom ash-Shofiiy uchun esa foyda va boshqa foydalar, ularning uchun alohida hawl (bir yil) e'tiborga olinishi orqali yagona hukmga ega bo'ladi. Shuningdek, chorva mollaridagi foydalar va bolalar ko'payishi ham, agar asl mablag' nisobga yetsa, ularning hawli asl mablag' bilan birgalikda e'tiborga olinishi orqali yagona hukmga ega bo'ladi.

This issue relates to gains in cattle. The opinion of Malik in this case is the opposite of what it is in the case of liquid assets. The reason is that he bases the gains oh the capital,203 204 if that capital amounts to a nisab, just as Abu Harnfa does it in the cases of dirhams and gains in cattle. Abu Hamfa’s opinion on gains is that there is a common hukm, that is, it is based upon the capital if it amounts to a nisab, whether the gain is in sheep or in liquid assets. The profits and increase in offspring, in his view, are like gains. For Malik profits and offspring have a common hukm, but he distinguishes between the gains in liquid assets and those in cattle. For al-ShafiT profits and gains have a common hukm through the consideration of an independent hawl for them, and also the gains in cattle and offspring have a common hukm through the consideration of their hawl along with the capital if that amounts to the nisab.

Ushbu uch yetakchi faqihning fikrlari xulosasi. Ko‘rinishicha, Molik chorva va naqd mablag‘ni farqlagan, bunda Umarga ergashgan; aks holda ikkala holatda ham qiyos bir xil: foyda nasl o‘sishiga o‘xshaydi, kapitaldan olingan daromad esa mollardan olingan daromadga o‘xshaydi. Bu yerdagi Umar rivoyati shuki, u ularga (nisobga kiradigan) kichik qo‘zilarni sanashni buyurgan, ammo ulardan zakot sifatida hech narsa olmaslikni buyurgan. Bu rivoyat nisob bobida avval o‘tgan.

This is the summary of the opinions of these three (leading) jurists. It appears that Malik distinguished between cattle and liquid assets following ^tJmar, otherwise the analogy is the same for both cases, that is, profit being similar to (a growth in) offspring and gains (on capital) being similar to gains (in stock). The tradition of TJmar here is that he ordered them to count the young lambs (in the nisab), but not to take anything from them as zakat. The tradition has preceded in the section on nisab.

Bu masala qo'ylarning bolalari uchun hawlni hisobga olish haqidadir. Malik aytdiki, bu bolalar uchun ham onalari bilan bir xil hawl qo'llanadi, ular nisobni tashkil etishidan qat'i nazar, xuddi suyuq aktivlardan olingan foyda haqidagi fikri kabi. Ash-Shafi'iy, Abu Hanifa va Abu Savr esa bolalarning hawli onalarinikidan farq qilishini, agar onalar nisobni tashkil etmasa, aytdilar. Ularning ixtilofining sababi foyda masalasidagi ixtilofning sababi bilan bir xil.

This issue is about the consideration of a hawl in the case of the offspring of sheep. Malik said that it is the same hawl that applies to the mothers, irrespective of their constituting a nisab, as was his opinion about profits on liquid assets. Al-Shafi T, Abu Hanifa, c and Abu Thawr maintained that the hawl of the offspring is not the same as that for the mothers, unless the mothers constitute a nisab. The reason for their disagreement is the same reason for their disagreement about profits.

Ushbu masala hawl tugamasdan oldin zakot berish haqida. Molik buni ruxsat etmagan, Abu Hanifa va al-Shofi'iy esa ruxsat bergan. Ularning ixtilofining sababi zakot ibodatmi yoki muhtojlarga bo'lgan burchmi, degan savolda. Zakotni ibodat deb hisoblaganlar, uni namozga o'xshatib, belgilangan vaqtdan oldin berishni ruxsat etmagan. Kechiktirilgan vojib burchlarga o'xshash deb hisoblaganlar esa, ixtiyoriy sadaqalar kabi, davr tugashidan oldin berishga ruxsat bergan. Al-Shofi'iy o'z fikrini 'Ali (roziyallohu anhu) rivoyatiga tayanib asoslagan: "Payg'ambar ﷺ al-'Abbosning sadaqasini uning vaqtidan oldin qarz olgan".

This issue is about the payment of zakat prior to the completion of the hawl. Malik disallowed this, while Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi€T permitted it. The reason for their disagreement is whether zakat is a form of worship or a duty owed to the needy. Those who said that it is a form of worship, and they compared it to prayer, did not permit paying it prior to the time set for it. Those who held it to be similar to delayed obligatory duties permitted paying it prior to the end of the period like voluntary donations. Al-ShafiT argued for his opinion on the basis of the tradition of CAIT “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) borrowed the sadaqa of al-cAbbas prior to its time”