Ushbu ibodat turining wajibligi belgilanganidan keyin, uning batafsil bayoni besh bobda keltirilgan. Birinchi bob — bu ibodat kimga vojib bo‘lishi haqida. Ikkinchi bob — zakot solinadigan mol-mulk turlarini aniqlashga bag‘ishlangan. Uchinchi bob — zakot miqdori va stavkalarini aniqlash haqida. To‘rtinchi bob — zakot olinadigan va olinmaydigan muddatlarni aniqlash haqida. Beshinchi bob — zakot beriladigan shaxslarni va ularga tegishli miqdorlarni aniqlash haqida.

A comprehensive discussion191 of this form of worship, after the determina­ tion of its obligation, is covered in five chapters. The first chapter is about the persons on whom it is obligatory. The second chapter deals with* the identification of the kinds of wealth on which it is imposed. The third chapter is abour the identification of the rates and the amounts on which it is levied. The fourth chapter is about the identification of the periods during which it is levied and the periods in which it is not. The fifth chapter is about the identification of the persons for whom it is to be paid and of the amounts due to them.

Uning vojibligini Qur'on, sunna va ijmo' (konsensus) orqali belgilanishi ma'lum bo'lib, bu borada hech qanday ixtilof yo'q.

The determination of its obligation through the Qut°an, the sunna, and from ijm# (consensus) is well-known, and there is no dispute about this.

Ular har bir ozod, balog'atga yetgan, aqli joyida bo'lgan va nisob miqdoridagi mol-mulkka to'liq (qarzsiz, cheklovsiz) egalik qiladigan musulmon uchun bu (zakot) farz ekanligida kelishdilar. Yetim, aqli noqis kishi, qullar, zimmiy ahli va egaligi to'liq bo'lmagan (cheklangan) kishi, masalan, qarzdor yoki qarz beruvchi bo'lgan kishi yoki mol-mulkning asosiy qismi, masalan, vaqf (habs) orqali ushlab turilgan bo'lsa, ularga bu farzning yuklanishi haqida ixtilof qildilar.

They agreed that it is obligatory upon every Muslim who is free, bdligk, sane, and who owns wealth equal to the (minimum) prescribed scale (nisdb) through a complete (unencumbered) ownership. They disagreed about its obligation upon the orphan, the insane, the slaves, the ahi al-dhimmay and the person with deficient (encumbered) ownership like a person who is in debt or is a creditor, or when for example the capital (of the wealth) is held in a trust (habs, waqf}.

Voyaga yetmaganlarning mollari bo‘yicha bir guruh ulamolar ularning molida zakot majburiy ekanini aytdi. Bu fikr sahobalardan Alī, Ibn Umar, Jobir va Oisha roziyallohu anhum ajmаin, shuningdek, Molik, ash-Shofiʼiy, as-Savriy, Ahmad, Ishoq, Abu Savr va boshqa viloyatlardagi faqihlarniki edi. Yana bir guruh esa voyaga yetmaganning molida umuman zakot yo‘q, deydi. Bu fikr tobeʼinlardan an-Nakhaiy, al-Hasan va Saʼid ibn Jubayrniki edi. Faqihlarning bir guruhi yer mahsulotlari bilan yerdan kelmaydigan mollarni farqladi. Ular yer mahsulotida zakot borligini, lekin bundan boshqa narsalar, masalan, chorva mollari, naqd pullar va mollar (tovarlar)da zakot yo‘qligini aytdi. Bu fikr Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlariniki edi. Yana bir guruh esa naqd pullar bilan boshqa narsalarni farqlab, naqd pullardan tashqari molda zakot borligini aytdi.

With respect to minors, one group said that zakat is obligatory on their wealth. This was the opinion of ‘AIT, Ibn ^Umar, Jabir, and cA?isha from among the Companions, and of Malik, al-Shafi T, al-ThawrT, Ahmad, c Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and others from among the.jurists of the provinces. Another group said that there is no zakat at all on the wealth of the minor. This was the opinion of al-Nakha'i, al-Hasan, and SacTd ibn Jubayr from the Tabi un. One group of jurists made a distinction between the yield of c the land and wealth not derived from the land. They said that there is zakat on the yield from the land, but there is no zakat on what is besides this like cattle, liquid assets, goods (chattel). This was the opinion of Abu Harnfa and his disciples. Yet another group distinguished between liquid assets and other things saying that there is zakat on the wealth except on liquid assets.

Ularning zakot kimlarga farz bo'lishi masalasidagi ixtilofining sababi zakotning shar'iy mohiyati haqidagi tortishuvlaridan kelib chiqadi: zakot namoz va ro'za kabi ibodatlardan biri hisoblanadimi yoki u boy kishining molida faqirlar va muhtojlarning vojib haqqimi. Zakot ibodat deganlar farz bo'lish shartiga shaxsning balog'at yoshiga yetganligini qo'yganlar. Zakot faqirlar va muhtojlarning boylar mollaridagi vojib haqqi deganlar esa, boshqa narsalar qatorida, shaxsning balog'atini e'tiborga olmaganlar. Yer mahsulotini boshqa narsalardan, shuningdek ko'rinadigan va ko'rinmaydigan mollarni bir-biridan ajratganlarning dalilini hozircha men bilmayman.

Bu masala vaqf mulki bo'lgan daraxtlarning mevasi haqida. Malik va al-Shofi'iy ularga zakot majburiy deb hisoblaganlar, Makhul va Tovus esa ularda zakot yo'q, deb aytganlar. Bir guruh faqihlar esa farq qilganlar: agar vaqf daraxtlar umuman muhtojlar uchun bo'lsa yoki aniq belgilangan guruh uchun bo'lsa. Agar foydalanuvchilar aniq belgilangan guruh bo'lsa, ular zakot to'lashni majburiy deb hisoblaganlar, lekin agar foydalanuvchilar umuman muhtojlar bo'lsa, zakot to'lamaganlar. Muhtojlarga zakot solishning hech qanday asosi yo'q, chunki bunda ikkita to'sqinlik qiluvchi omil mavjud: birinchidan, bu nomukammal mulkdorlikka olib keladi, ikkinchidan, muhtojlar zakot mablag'lari sarflanadigan, lekin zakot beriladigan kishilar bo'lmagan, aniq bo'lmagan toifadir.

This issue relates to fruit from trees, when, the trees are the property of a trust. Malik and al-Shafi T used to impose zakat c on them, while Makhul and Tawus used to say that there is no zakat on them. A group of jurists used to make a distinction when the trees were a trust for the needy generally or for a specified group. They imposed zakat on them when the beneficiaries were a determined (specified) group, but they did not do so when the beneficiaries were the needy generally. There is no justification in imposing the zakat on the needy as two disqualifying factors operate in this: first, it amounts to a deficient ownership, and second, the needy are an indeterminate category of people on whom the zakat funds are to be spent and not those from who it is due.

Ikkinchi masala ijaraga berilgan yer bilan bog'liq. U bu yerning hosilidan zakot kimning zimmasida ekanligi haqidagi savolni ko'rib chiqadi. Bir guruh faqihlar zakotning ijaraga olgan, ya'ni ekinlarning egasi bo'lgan kishiga yuklanishini aytdilar. Bu Molik, ash-Shofi'iy, ath-Savriy, Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Savr va boshqa bir guruh faqihlarning fikri edi. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari esa zakot yer egasining zimmasida bo'lishini, undan yerni ijaraga olgan kishi esa hech narsa to'lamasligini ta'kidladilar.

The second issue relates to land given out on rent. It deals with the question as to who is liable for zakat on the yield of this land. A group of jurists said that the zakat is to be levied on the tenant, who is the owner of the plants. This was the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi T, al-ThawrT, Ibn al-Mubarak, Abu Thawr, c and a group of jurists. Abu HanTfa and his disciples maintained that zakat is due from the owner of the land and the person who rents it from him does not owe anything.

Ixtilof ularning sababi ʿushr (hishr) majburiyatining yer bilan bog‘liqmi, ekin-tikin bilan bog‘liqmi yoki ikkalasi bilan birgami, degan savoldan kelib chiqadi. Hech kim bu ikkalasi bilan birga bog‘liq deb aytmagan, holbuki, aslida u ikkalasi bilan birga bog‘liq majburiyatdir. Ular bu ikki narsadan birortasiga tegishli majburiyat ekaniga kelishganlar, ammo qaysi biri ustunroq ekanligi borasida ixtilof qilganlar. Bu kelishuv bo‘lgan nuqta bilan bog‘liq bo‘lib, u ekin ham, yer ham bitta egasiga tegishli bo‘lgan holatdir. Jumhur ulamo bu majburiyat zakot beriladigan narsa, ya’ni don (yoki hosil) bilan bog‘liq deb hisoblagan. Abu Hanifa esa bu majburiyatning asosi bo‘lgan narsa, ya’ni yer bilan bog‘liq deb hisoblagan.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the question of whether hishr is a duty related to the land or to cultivation or to both. No one has said that it is a duty related to both when, in fact, it is a duty related to both. They agreed that it is a duty incumbent upon one of the two, but they disagreed on which one has precedence for being associated with a point on which there is agreement, and that is the occasion when the crop as well as the land belong to a single owner. The majority maintained that it is related to the thing from which zakat is to be paid, and that is grain (or the yield). Abu HanTfa maintained, however, that it is related to the thing that is the basis of the obligation, and that is land.

Kharaj yerlari musulmonlarga o'tganda, ularda kharaj bilan birga ushr joriy etiladimi yoki ushr bo'lmaydimi, degan masalada ulamolar o'rtasidagi ixtilofga kelsak: ko'pchilik ularda ushr, ya'ni zakot bor, deb hisoblagan, Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari esa ularda ushr yo'q, deb hisoblagan. Ularning ixtilofi, biz aytganimizdek, zakotning yerga bog'liq farzmi yoki ekinga bog'liq farzmi, degan savoldan kelib chiqadi. Agar zakot yerga bog'liq farz deb hisoblansa, unga bir vaqtning o'zida ikki farz – ushr va kharaj – bog'lana olmaydi. Agar zakot ekinga bog'liq deb hisoblansa, kharaj yerga, zakot esa ekinga belgilanadi. Bu ixtilof mulkchilikning, biz aytganimizdek, to'liq emasligidan kelib chiqadi va aynan shu sababli fuqaholar kharaj yerini sotish masalasida ixtilofga borganlar. Agar ushr yeri zimmiyga o'tib, u uni obrabotka qilsa, ko'pchilik unda uning zimmasiga hech narsa yuklanmaydi, deb hisoblaydi. An-Nu'mon esa zimmiy ushr yerini sotib olganda, u kharaj yeriga aylanadi, degan fikrda edi. Ko'rinadiki, u ushrni musulmon yerida lozim bo'lgan farz, kharajni esa zimmiylar yerida lozim bo'lgan farz deb hisoblagan; shu qoidaga asoslanib, u kharaj yeri musulmonlarga o'tsa, u ushr yeriga aylanadi, deb aytishi zarur bo'lgan, xuddi uning nazarida ushr yeri zimmiyga o'tsa, u kharaj yeriga aylanganidek.

Mulk egasi bilan bog'liq bo'lgan ba'zi kichik masalalar bor, ularni bu bo'limda muhokama qilish o'rinlidir. Birinchisi: kishi zakotni ajratib qo'ygan, lekin u yo'qolib ketgan holat. Ikkinchisi: zakotni ajratib qo'yish mumkin bo'lgan, lekin zakot ajratilishidan oldin mol-mulkning bir qismi halok bo'lgan holat. Uchinchisi: mol egasi zakot to'lashga majbur bo'lgan, lekin uni to'lashdan oldin vafot etgan holat. To'rtinchisi: zakot vojib bo'lgan ekin yoki meva sotilganda, shuningdek, u sovg'a qilib berilganda, zakotni kim to'laydi.

There are sub-issues related to the owner of wealth the discussion of which is suitably placed is this section. The first of these is (the situation) when a man sets aside zakat but it is lost. Second, when the setting aside of zakat is possible but when part of the wealth is destroyed before zakat is set aside. Third, where the owner was under an obligation to pay zakat, but died before paying it. Fourth, who is to pay zakat if he sells off the crop or fruit on which zakat was due, and similarly when he gives it away as a gift.

Ushbu (masala) zakotni ajratib qo‘ygan, lekin u yo‘qolib ketgan egasi haqidagi muammoni qamrab oladi. Bir guruh faqihlar uning zakotni yo‘qotgani uchun unga (hisobga) o‘tkazilishi kerak, deyishdi. Boshqa bir guruh esa, u zakotni o‘z joyiga yetkazib bermaguncha javobgar bo‘lishini aytdi. Uchinchi guruh esa, zakotni ajratishni vaqti kelganidan keyin qilish bilan, majburiyat paydo bo‘lgan va buni qilish mumkin bo‘lgan vaqtning boshida (darhol) ajratish o‘rtasida farq qildi. Ba’zi faqihlar, agar u majburiyat paydo bo‘lgan va buni qilish imkoni yuzaga kelgan vaqtdan bir necha kun o‘tib ajratsa, javobgar bo‘ladi, lekin agar majburiyat paydo bo‘lgan birinchi lahzada ajratsa va uning tomonidan beparvolik bo‘lmasa, javobgar bo‘lmaydi, dedilar. Bu Molik mazhabidagi mashhur qarash hisoblanadi. To‘rtinchi guruh faqihlar, agar uning tomonidan beparvolik bo‘lsa, uni qoplashi kerak, lekin beparvolik bo‘lmagan bo‘lsa, faqat qolgan mol uchun zakot to‘laydi, dedilar. Bu Abu Savr va ash-Shofi‘iyning qarashi edi. Beshinchi guruh esa, yo‘qolgan narsa barcha tomonlar uchun zarar deb hisoblanishi kerakligini, muhtojlar hamda egasi qolgan moldagi o‘z ulushlariga mutanosib ravishda sherik deb hisoblanishi kerakligini aytdi, xuddi ikki sherik umumiy kapitalning bir qismi yo‘qolganda, lekin qolgan qismida o‘sha nisbatda sherik bo‘lib qolganlaridek. Shunday qilib, bu masala bo‘yicha besh xil qarash paydo bo‘ladi: birinchi, u zararni umuman qoplamaydi; ikkinchi, u doim qoplaydi; uchinchi, beparvolik qilgan bo‘lsa qoplaydi, beparvolik qilmagan bo‘lsa qoplamaydi; to‘rtinchi, beparvolik qilgan bo‘lsa qoplaydi, beparvolik qilmagan bo‘lsa qolgan mol uchun zakot to‘laydi; beshinchi, ular (egasi va muhtojlar) qolgan molda sherik bo‘ladilar.

This (issue) deals with the problem where the owner sets aside zakat and it is lost. A group of jurists said that he is to be given credit for it. Another group said that he is liable for it till he delivers it to its location. A third group made a distinction between his setting it aside later than when it was possible to do so and between setting it aside (promptly) at the beginning of the time when the obligation arises and when it is possible to do so. Some of these jurists said that if he sets it aside some days after the time at which the obligation arises and the possibility to do so, then he is liable but if he sets it aside at the first moment obligation arises and there was no negligence on his part he is not liable. This is a well-known opinion in Malik’s school. A fourth group of jurists said that if there was negligence on his part he is to compensate for it, but if he was not negligent he is to pay zakat on the remainder alone. This was the opinion of Abu Thawr and al-ShaficT. A fifth group said that what has been lost is to be counted as a loss for all parties, and the needy people as well as the owner are to be considered co-owners in proportion to their shares in the remaining wealth, as (is the case) with two partners when part of the common capital is lost but remain partners in the residue in the same ratio. Thus, we arrive at five opinions on the issue: first, that he is not to compensate for the loss at all; second, that he always compensates; third, that he compensates if he was negligent, but does not if he was not negligent; fourth, that he compensates if he was negligent and pays zakat on the residue if he was not; and fifth, that they (the owner and the needy) become partners in the remaining wealth.

Ushbu (masala) zakotni ajratib qo‘ygan, lekin u yo‘qolib ketgan egasi haqidagi muammoni qamrab oladi. Bir guruh faqihlar uning zakotni yo‘qotgani uchun unga (hisobga) o‘tkazilishi kerak, deyishdi. Boshqa bir guruh esa, u zakotni o‘z joyiga yetkazib bermaguncha javobgar bo‘lishini aytdi. Uchinchi guruh esa, zakotni ajratishni vaqti kelganidan keyin qilish bilan, majburiyat paydo bo‘lgan va buni qilish mumkin bo‘lgan vaqtning boshida (darhol) ajratish o‘rtasida farq qildi. Ba’zi faqihlar, agar u majburiyat paydo bo‘lgan va buni qilish imkoni yuzaga kelgan vaqtdan bir necha kun o‘tib ajratsa, javobgar bo‘ladi, lekin agar majburiyat paydo bo‘lgan birinchi lahzada ajratsa va uning tomonidan beparvolik bo‘lmasa, javobgar bo‘lmaydi, dedilar. Bu Molik mazhabidagi mashhur qarash hisoblanadi. To‘rtinchi guruh faqihlar, agar uning tomonidan beparvolik bo‘lsa, uni qoplashi kerak, lekin beparvolik bo‘lmagan bo‘lsa, faqat qolgan mol uchun zakot to‘laydi, dedilar. Bu Abu Savr va ash-Shofi‘iyning qarashi edi. Beshinchi guruh esa, yo‘qolgan narsa barcha tomonlar uchun zarar deb hisoblanishi kerakligini, muhtojlar hamda egasi qolgan moldagi o‘z ulushlariga mutanosib ravishda sherik deb hisoblanishi kerakligini aytdi, xuddi ikki sherik umumiy kapitalning bir qismi yo‘qolganda, lekin qolgan qismida o‘sha nisbatda sherik bo‘lib qolganlaridek. Shunday qilib, bu masala bo‘yicha besh xil qarash paydo bo‘ladi: birinchi, u zararni umuman qoplamaydi; ikkinchi, u doim qoplaydi; uchinchi, beparvolik qilgan bo‘lsa qoplaydi, beparvolik qilmagan bo‘lsa qoplamaydi; to‘rtinchi, beparvolik qilgan bo‘lsa qoplaydi, beparvolik qilmagan bo‘lsa qolgan mol uchun zakot to‘laydi; beshinchi, ular (egasi va muhtojlar) qolgan molda sherik bo‘ladilar. Ularning ixtilofining sababi zakotni qarzlar bilan qiyoslashdan kelib chiqadi: ya'ni bu farz mulkning o'zi bilan emas, balki shaxsning zimmasi bilan bog'liqdir; yoki uni mulkning o'zi bilan bog'liq bo'lgan farzlar bilan qiyoslashdan, masalan, omonatdor va boshqalar holatida bo'lgani kabi, mulkni qo'lida tutib turgan shaxsning zimmasi bilan emas, balki mulkning o'zi bilan bog'liq bo'lgan farzlar bilan qiyoslashdan kelib chiqadi. Mulk egalarini omonatdorlarga o'xshatganlar, agar u zakotni ajratib qo'ysa-yu, u yo'qolib ketsa, uning zimmasida hech narsa bo'lmaydi, deganlar. Ularni qarzdorlarga o'xshatganlar esa, u (yo'qotish evaziga) tovon to'lashi kerak, deganlar. Beparvolik va beparvolik yo'qligi asosida farq qilganlar esa, ularni omonatdorlar bilan har jihatdan bog'lab, omonatdor beparvolik qilganda tovon to'laydi, deganlar. Agar u beparvolik qilmagan bo'lsa, qolgan mulkdan zakot to'lashi kerak, deb hisoblaganlar esa, zakotni ajratib qo'yganidan keyin mulkining bir qismini yo'qotgan shaxsni, farz vujudga kelishidan oldin mulkining bir qismini yo'qotgan shaxsga qiyoslaganlar: xuddi o'sha shaxs farz vaqtida o'zida mavjud bo'lgan narsadan zakot to'lagani kabi, bu shaxs ham o'zida mavjud bo'lgan narsadan zakot to'laydi. Ixtilofning sababi mulk egasini qarzdor, omonatdor, sherik va farz vujudga kelishidan oldin mulkining bir qismini yo'qotgan shaxs bilan bog'lashdagi farqdan kelib chiqadi.

Bu vojib bo'lish boshlanganidan keyin vafot etgan shaxsga tegishli • IQ?

This relates to the person who dies after the commencement of the obligation • IQ?

zakot haqida. Bir guruh faqihlar uni uning mol-mulkidan, ya'ni asosiy kapitalidan chiqarish kerak, deb aytdilar. Bu ash-Shofi'iy, Ahmad, Is'hoq va Abu Savr fikri edi. Boshqa bir guruh esa, zakot faqat u o'z vasiyatnomasida uning merosidan to'lanishi haqida qoldirgan taqdirdagina to'lanadi, dedi. Bunday holda, u merosning uchdan biridan chiqariladi. Aks holda, hech narsa vojib emas. Bu faqihlarning ba'zilari, agar zakot uchdan bir miqdorida yoki undan kam bo'lsa, uni avval ado etish kerak, deb aytdilar, boshqalari esa uni avval ado etish kerak emas, dedilar. Ikkala fikr ham Molikdan rivoyat qilinadi, lekin mashhur fikr shuki, uni vasiyat sifatida ko'rish kerak.

of zakat. A group of jurists said that it is to be taken out from his capital. This was the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr. Another group said that zakat is to be paid only if he leaves a testament to the effect that it is to be paid from his estate. In that case, it is to be taken out from the third of the estate. Otherwise nothing is due. Some of these jurists said that zakat is to be satisfied first if it is as much as the third or is less than that, while others said that it is not to be satisfied first. Both opinions are narrated from Malik, but the well-known opinion is that it is to be treated as a bequest.

Ularning zakot majburiy bo'lib qolgandan keyin sotilgan mol-mulk borasidagi ixtiloflariga kelsak, bir guruh faqihlar aytdiki, zakot to'lashi kerak bo'lgan shaxs (sotuvchi) zakotni mol-mulkning o'zidan olishi mumkin, xaridor esa uning qiymati uchun sotuvchiga murojaat qilishi kerak. Bu Abu Savr fikri edi. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar aytdiki, savdo bekor qilinadi, bu esa ash-Shofi'iy fikri edi. Abu Hanifa aytdiki, xaridorda savdoni amalga oshirish yoki uni bekor qilish o'rtasida tanlov huquqi bor, ushr esa zakot majburiy bo'lgan meva yoki donning o'zidan olinadi. Molik aytdiki, zakotni to'lash sotuvchining zimmasidadir.

With respect to their disagreement about wealth that is sold after zakat has become due on it, a group of jurists said that the person from whom zakat is due (the seller) may take the zakat from the wealth itself, and the buyer is to have recourse to the seller for its value. This was the opinion of Abu Thawr. Another group of jurists said that the sale is rescinded, and this was al-Shafic?s opinion. Abu HanTfa said that the buyer has an option between .the execution of the sale or its revocation, and the hishr is to be taken from the fruit or from the grain on which zakat was due. Malik said that the seller is liable for the payment of zakat.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi mol-mulkni sotish va uning yo'qolishi hamda buzilishini o'zaro solishtirishdan kelib chiqadi. Ularni o'xshash deb hisoblaganlar: zakot mulkni yo'q qilgan yoki uning yo'qolishiga sabab bo'lgan shaxsning zimmasida bo'ladi, deganlar. Sotish mol-mulk asl mohiyatining yo'q bo'lishi yoki yo'qolishi hisoblanmaydi, balki kishining o'ziga tegishli bo'lmagan narsani sotishi hisoblanadi, deb turganlar esa zakot mol-mulkning asl mohiyatiga bog'liq, deganlar. Sotuvni bekor qilish kerakmi-yo'qmi, degan masala alohida muhokama bo'lib, u xohlasa Alloh, sotish bobida ko'rib chiqiladi. Hadya (sovg'a) yo'li bilan begonaga o'tkazilgan mol-mulkdagi zakot haqidagi ixtiloflari ham shunga o'xshashdir.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the comparison of the sale of the property with its loss and destruction. Those who considered them similar said that zakat is the liability of the person destroying the property or causing its loss. Those who maintained that sale does not amount to destruction of the substance of the wealth nor its loss, but amounts to sale by a person of what does not belong to him said that zakat is linked to the substance of the wealth. Whether the sale is to be rescinded is a separate discussion that will be taken up in the section on sales, God willing. Their dispute about zakat on wealth that has been alienated by a gift is of a similar nature.

Bu masalalarning ba'zilarida Mazhabda batafsil bahslar bor, ularni bu yerda bayon qilishni biz to'g'ri topmadik, chunki bu bizning maqsadimizga mos kelmaydi. Bundan tashqari, bu farqlarning sabablarini ko'rsatish qiyin, chunki ularning aksariyati istihsonga asoslangan, masalan, zakot wajib bo'ladigan va bo'lmaydigan qarzlarning tafsilotlari hamda zakotni soqit qiladigan va qilmaydigan qarzlar haqidagi bahs. Shuning uchun biz ushbu bobda quyidagilarni zikr qilish lozim deb topdik: zakot berishi lozim bo'lgan shaxsni aniqlash, zakot wajib bo'ladigan mulkdorlik shartlari va zakot berishi lozim bo'lgan shaxsning ahkomlari.