Ular bir ovozdan kelishdilar: buyruqda muxotab bo'lgan kishilar musulmonlar bo'lib, erkak yoki ayol, voyaga yetgan yoki yetmagan, qul yoki erkin bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, bu ilgari keltirilgan Ibn Umar rivoyati tufayli shunday. Faqat al-Layth bundan chetga chiqqan: u poytaxt aholisini zakoti fitr to'lash majburiyatidan ozod qilib, uni faqat qishloq aholisi bilan cheklagan, ammo buning uchun uning dalili yo'q. Yana bir chetga chiqish yetimlar nomidan majburiy emas, deganlarning fikrida uchraydi. Kimlar uchun majburiy bo'lishiga kelsak, ular kelishdilki, o'z nomidan to'lashga qodir har bir kishiga majburiy, chunki bu shaxs uchun berilgan zakot bo'lib, mol-mulk uchun emas. Shuningdek, mustaqil mol-mulkka ega bo'lmagan voyaga yetmagan farzandlari nomidan ham, va mol-mulkka ega bo'lmagan qullar nomidan ham to'lash kishiga majburiydir. Bundan tashqarisi haqida ular ixtilof qilishdi.

They agreed unanimously that the Muslims are the addressees in the command, whether male or female, minor or major, slave or freeman, because of the preceding tradition of Ibn TJmar, except the deviation by al-Layth, who exempted the residents of the capital from the obligation to pay zakat al-fitr, and restricted it to the residents of the villages, but he has no evidence for this. Another deviation is found in the opinion of those who do not make it obligatory on behalf of the orphans. As to the persons on whose behalf it is obligatory, they agreed that it is obligatory on each person who is able to pay it on his own behalf, for it is a zakat on the person and not on wealth. It is also obligatory on the person to pay it on behalf of his minor children if they do not own independent wealth, and also for slaves if they do not own any wealth. They differed over what is besides this.

Malik'ning fikri xulosasi shundan iboratki, inson o'zi nafaqasini majburan ta'minlashi lozim bo'lgan barcha kishilar uchun zakotul-fitr to'lashga majburdir. Ash-Shofi'iy bu masalada unga qo'shildi, lekin ular bir kishi qiyin ahvolda bo'lganda kimni boqishga majbur ekani haqidagi bahslarida farqlanadilar. Abu Hanifa esa xotin masalasida unga qarshi chiqib, xotin o'zi uchun o'zi to'lashi kerak, dedi. Abu Savr esa ularga qarshi chiqib, mol-mulkka ega bo'lgan qul haqida dedi: agar uning mol-mulki bo'lsa, u o'zi uchun to'laydi, xo'jayini uning nomidan to'lamaydi. Bu fikrni zohiriylar ham qo'llab-quvvatladilar. Ko'pchilik fikri shuki, agar voyaga yetmagan farzandlarining zakotul-fitr to'lashga yetarli mol-mulki bo'lsa, otaning ularning nomidan to'lashi majburiy emas. Bu fikr Ash-Shofi'iy, Abu Hanifa va Molikning fikri edi. Hasan al-Basriy esa, majburiyat otaning zimmasida bo'lib, agar u buni o'g'lining (farzandining) molidan to'lasa, uni qaytarishi lozim, dedi.

The summary of Malik’s opinion is that a person is obliged to pay zakat al- fitr on behalf of all persons whose maintenance is obligatory on him. Al-ShafiT agreed with him on this, but they differ with reference to their dispute over whom a man is obliged to maintain if he is in difficult straits. Abu HanTfa opposed him with respect to a wife and said that she is to pay for herself. Abu Thawr opposed them in the case of a slave who owns wealth. He said that if he has wealth he is to pay for himself, and his master is not to pay on his behalf. This was also upheld by the Zahirites. The majority maintain that a man is not obliged to pay on behalf of his minor children if they have their own wealth sufficient for zakat al-fitr. This was the opinion of al-Shafi*!, Abu HanTfa, and Malik. Al-Hasan said that the liability is upon the father, and if he pays it out of the wealth of his son (child) he is to compensate it.

Ko'pchilik faqihlarning fikricha, bu turdagi zakot uchun boylik shart emas, nisob ham yo'q, faqat uning o'zi va oilasining oziq-ovqat ehtiyojidan ortiqcha bo'lishini shart qilishgan. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari esa, sadaqa olishga haqli bo'lgan kishiga bu zakot farz emas, deganlar, chunki kishining ham unga majbur bo'lishi, ham unga haqli bo'lishi mumkin emas. Bu ravshan, Alloh eng yaxshi biladi.

Affluence is not a condition for this kind of zakat, according to most of the jurists, and there is no nisdb, but they only stipulated that this zakat be a surplus over his need for food for himself and for his family. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that it is not obligatory on a person entitled to claim sadaqa, as it is not possible that a person should be liable for it as well as entitled to it. This is evident, Allah knows best.

Ko'pchilik ulamolar bu zakot mukallaf (ya'ni, ibodatni ado etishga mas'ul bo'lgan shaxs) bo'lish shartiga bog'liq emas, deb hisoblaydi, boshqa ibodat turlaridagi kabi. Demak, bu majburiyat voyaga yetmaganlarga va qullarga (shuningdek, aqli noqis shaxsga) ham tegishli bo'ladi. (Uni ularning vasiysi yoki nafaqa beruvchisi ularning nomidan to'laydi.) Bu hukmning asosiy sababi viloyat (vasiylik) deb tushunganlar, vasiy o'z qaramog'idagi barcha kishilar uchun sadaqa (zakotul-fitr) to'lashi shart, deb aytdilar. Sababni nafaqa deb tushunganlar esa, qonunan nafaqasini ta'minlashga majbur bo'lgan barcha kishilar uchun zakotul-fitrni nafaqa beruvchi to'lashi kerak, deb aytdilar. Bu ixtilof voyaga yetmagan bola va qul masalasida ularning kelishuvidan kelib chiqqan, aynan shu ikki holat esa bu zakotning faqat mukallafning shaxsi bilan bog'liq emasligini, balki vasiylik va nafaqa majburiyati mavjud bo'lganda boshqalar nomidan ham to'lanishini ko'rsatadi. Shunday qilib, Molik nafaqa majburiyatini asosiy sabab deb bildi, Abu Hanifa esa bu yerda sabab viloyat ekanini tutdi va shu sababli ular xotin masalasida ixtilof qildilar. Marfu' rivoyat sifatida nақl qilinadi: "Nafaqasi zimmangizga yuklatilgan barcha kishilar nomidan zakotul-fitrni to'langlar". Biroq, bu rivoyat mashhur emas.

The majority maintain that this zakat is not dependent on the prerequisite of being a mukallaf (that is, a person responsible for the performance of worship), as is the case with other forms of worship. The obligation, therefore, applies to minors arid slaves (and to the insane person). (It is to be paid on their behalf by their guardian or maintainer.) Those who understood from this that the underlying cause of the hukm is wilaya said that the w/f is under an obligation to pay the sadaqa (zakat al-fitr) for all those who are under his guardianship. Those who understood the cause to be maintenance said that it is the maintainer who is to pay the zakat al-fitr for all those whom he is obliged to maintain under the law. This disagreement arose because they agreed over the minor and the slave, and it is these two cases that point out that this zakat is not linked to the person of the mukallaf alone, but is owed on behalf of others if guardianship and the obligation to maintain exist. Malik, then, maintained that the underlying cause is the obligation to maintain, while Abu HanTfa held that the cause here is wilaya, and for that reason they differed over the wife. It is related as a marfuS tradition that: “Pay the zakat al-fitr on behalf of all those whose burden of maintenance has been placed upon you”. It is, however, not well-known.

Ular qullar masalasida bir qancha masalalarda ixtilof qilishgan. Birinchisi, biz zikr qilganimizdek, agar qulning mol-mulki bo‘lsa, uning zakotini xo‘jayini zimmasiga yuklash vajibligi. Bu masala qulning biror narsaga egalik qila olish yoki olmasligi haqidagi nuqtaga asoslangan. Ikkinchi masala kofir bo‘lgan qul haqida, ya’ni xo‘jayin uning nomidan zakot to‘lashi kerakmi yo‘qmi. Molik, ash-Shofi‘iy va Ahmad aytdilar: kofir qul uchun xo‘jayin zimmasida zakot vajib emas. Kufaliklar esa aytdilar: u uning nomidan zakot to‘lashga majburdir. Ularning ixtilofining sababi Ibn Umarning rivoyatida keltirilgan masala bo‘yicha qo‘shimcha so‘z ustidagi tortishuvdan kelib chiqadi. Bu uning “musulmonlar” degan so‘zlariga taalluqlidir, unga Nofi‘ qarshi chiqqan, chunki rivoyat qiluvchi Ibn Umar ham kofir qullar nomidan zakot to‘lanishi kerak degan fikrda bo‘lgan. Ixtilofning yana bir sababi bor: xo‘jayin zimmasidagi qul uchun zakotning vajib bo‘lishi qulning mukallaf ekanligi uchunmi yoki u mol-mulk sanalgani uchunmi. Uni mukallaf bo‘lgani uchun deganlar, imonni shart qilib qo‘yganlar. Uni mol-mulk bo‘lgani uchun deganlar esa buni shart qilmaganlar. Bu oxirgi faqihlar, agar qul ozod qilinib, xo‘jayin uning nomidan fitr zakotini bermagan bo‘lsa, uni to‘lash unga vajib emas, xuddi kafforat (keffaratda) bo‘lgani kabi, degan fikrni aytganlar, buni faqihlarning ijmosi tasdiqlaydi. Uchinchi masala mukotab haqida. Molik va Abu Savr aytdilar: xo‘jayin uning nomidan fitr zakotini to‘lashi kerak. Ash-Shofi‘iy, Abu Hanifa va Ahmad aytdilar: u uning nomidan to‘lashga majbur emas. Ixtilofning sababi mukotabning hur va qul o‘rtasida tebranib turishidan kelib chiqadi. To‘rtinchisi — savdo uchun sotib olingan qullar masalasi. Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va Ahmad aytdilarki, xo'jayin o'z qullari uchun fitr zakotini to'lashga majburdir, Abu Hanifa va undan boshqa kishilar esa savdo maqsadida egalik qilingan qullar uchun sadaqa to'lanmasligini aytdilar. Ixtilofning sababi qiyos bilan umumiy ma'no o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Chunki oldingi rivoyatda kelgan "qul" so'zining umumiy ma'nosi savdo uchun egalik qilingan qullar uchun ham, boshqalar uchun ham zakot majburiyatini bildiradi. Abu Hanifaning nazarida bu umumiy ma'no qiyos orqali cheklanadi, bunga sabab esa bir xil turdagi boylikda ikki xil zakotning to'planishidir. Shuningdek, ular qullarga egalik qilingan qullar masalasida ham ixtilof qilganlar, va bu mavzudagi masalalar ko'pdir.

They disagreed over the case of slaves on a number of issues. The first, as we have mentioned, is the obligation of his zakat on his master if he (the slave) has wealth. This is based on the point of whether he can or cannot own something. The second case is about the slave who is a disbeliever, whether he (the master) should pay zakat on his behalf. Malik, al-ShafiT, and Ahmad said that there is no obligation of zakat on the master for his disbelieving slave. The KufTs said that he is liable for zakat on his behalf. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over the addition on the issue laid down in the tradition of Ibn TJmar. This relates to his words “the Muslims”, over which Nafic has been opposed, as Ibn TJmar being the narrator of the tradition also held the opinion that zakat is to be paid on behalf, of disbelieving slaves. There is another reason for the disagreement and that is whether the obligation of zakat on the master for his slave is due to the fact that the slave is a mukallaf or whether he is property. Those who maintained that it is due to his being a mukallaf stipulated that being a believer is a condition, while those who said that it is due to his being property did not stipulate it. These latter jurists said that this is indicated by the consensus of the jurists that if the slave is freed and the master has not paid zakat al-fitr on his behalf, it is not obligatory for him to pay as in the case in expiation. The third issue is about the mukdtab. Malik and Abu Thawr said that-the master is to pay zakat al-fitr on his behalf. Al-Shafi T, Abu HanTfa, and Ahmad said that c he is not obliged to pay on his behalf. The reason for the disagreement emanates from the vacillation of the case of the mukdtab between a freeman and slave. The fourth is the case of slaves acquired for trade. Malik, al-ShaficT, and Ahmad held that the master is obliged to pay zakat al-fitr on their behalf, while Abu HanTfa and others besides him said that there is no sadaqa payable for slaves owned for purposes of trade. The reason for the disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with the general implication (in the tradition). This is so as the general implication of the word slave (used in the preceding tradition) implies the obligation of zakat for slaves owned for trade as well as others. In Abu HanTfa’s view this general implication is restricted by analogy, and that is due to the convergence of tw'o kinds of zakat in a single type of wealth. They disagreed, likewise, in the case of slaves owned by slaves and the cases under this topic are many.