富裕的人在当今大多数社会中需要缴纳多种税款，包括累进税和其他税种，其税率往往是伊斯兰教法规定的天课税率的数倍。

Wealthy individuals in most contemporary societies pay several taxes, progressive and otherwise, at rates very often several times the rates of zakah decreed in Shari'ah.

这些税收为政府预算提供资金，并用于支付国家的各项开支。毋庸置疑，当代国家的若干开支项目与天课的受益对象相似，例如资助帮助穷人、残疾人和街头乞讨者的福利计划，或为失业者提供就业与培训的项目。

These taxes provide resources for the government's budget and finance the state's expenditures. No doubt, several subjects of the expenditure of contemporary states are similar to zakah deservants, such as funds for welfare programs that help the poor, the disable, and street beggars, or programs which provide job and training for the jobless.

大多数当代政府都设有一个或多个负责此类社会和福利事务的部门。因此，便产生了一个问题：这些税款能否抵充伊斯兰教法所要求的天课？还是穆斯林纳税人必须在向政府缴纳税款之外，另行个人缴纳天课或向相关机构缴纳天课？

Most contemporary governments have one or more department for such social and welfare matters. Therefore, the question arises, will these taxes make up for the zakah required by Shari'ah? Or must Muslim taxpayers pay zakah individually or to organizations in addition to taxes paid to the government?

要回答这个问题，我们必须记住，天课（zakah）有三个基本特征，缺少其中任何一个，天课便不成立。这三个特征是：

In order to answer this question, we must remember that there are three essential features of zakah without which. zakah does not exist. These are:

1. 伊斯兰教法所规定的税率（2.5%、5%或10%）

1. The rates as determined in Shari'ah (2.5 percent, five percent, or ten percent)

2. 专门为遵从真主而履行某项功修的意图。

2. The specific intention of fulfilling a worship in obedience to God.

3. 分配给《古兰经》中提到的八类人。

3. Distribution to the eight categories mentioned in the Qur'an.

这些税收是否具备这三个特征?税率与本研究所述的伊斯兰教法规定的税率并不一致。在某些资产上,税率高于天课的税率,而在另一些资产上则低于天课税率。一些应纳天课的资产根本不纳税,而一些应纳税的资产和收入在伊斯兰教法中却不属于应纳天课的范围。然而,有人可能会认为:当天课的税率高于税率时,穆斯林纳税人应当自行分配其间的差额;而当税率高于天课税率时,天课的义务已经被涵盖。至于意图,税收不要求意图,但仍可以认为,穆斯林纳税人在缴纳税款时可能抱有缴纳天课的意图。至于天课的第三个特征,即国家征收天课后必须依照《古兰经》的规定分配其收入。此外,如果政府征收天课,这种征收必须冠以天课之名,因为天课若失去其名称、形式和用途(即合理分配),其本质便随之丧失。基于这些理由,马立克学派特别主张:如果一个不公正的政府以天课之名、天课之形式征收天课,那么向这样的政府缴纳,即满足了个人纳税人的教法义务。但以其他名目征收的捐税,如马克斯税和达里巴税,不能替代天课,也不能被计为天课,只要它们不具有天课的名称和形式,尤其是因为它们可能被分配到伊斯兰教法不认可的用途上。

Do taxes have these three characteristics? Tax rates do not follow the rates determined in Shari'ah, which are described in this study. Tax rates are more than zakah rates on certain assets and less on others. Some zakatable assets are not taxable at all, while some taxable assets and incomes are not zakatable in Shari'ah. Yet one may argue that when the rate of zakah is more than the tax rate, Muslim taxpayers should be required to distribute the difference individually, and when the tax rate is more than the zakah rate, zakah is covered. As for intention taxes do not require intention, but one can still argue that Muslim taxpayers may have the intention of paying zakah when they pay their taxes. As for the third characteristic of zakah when the state collects zakah it must distribute its proceeds according to Qur'an. Moreover, if the government collects zakah, this collection must take the name of zakah, since zakah loses its essence without its name, form, and purpose (i.e. proper distribution). For such reasons, Malikites specifically argue that if an oppressive government collects zakah in the name and form of zakah, payment to such government fulfills the Shari'ah requirement for individual payers. But levies and taxes collected under other names, such as maks and daribah, do not replace zakah and cannot be counted as zakah as long as they do not carry the name and the form of zakah especially since they may be distributed to areas which are not approved in Shari'ah.

最后，我们必须认识到，如今在大多数国家，虔诚的穆斯林所承担的经济义务比非穆斯林更重，因为穆斯林和其他人一样需要纳税，此外还必须缴纳天课（Zakah），或直接分发给受益人，或通过伊斯兰组织缴纳。

Lastly, we must realize that sincere Muslims are in most countries today charged more financial dues that non-Muslims, since Muslims are required to pay taxes like everybody else, and in addition are required to pay zakah, either by direct distribution or through Islamic organizations.

上述问题之所以会出现,是因为当今穆斯林社会存在明显的矛盾。一方面,仍有许多穆斯林坚守伊斯兰教的基本信仰,而且在大多数穆斯林国家,伊斯兰教是官方宗教。然而,伊斯兰法已被从大多数穆斯林国家的立法体系中剥离。以天课为例,它是伊斯兰教的支柱之一,许多穆斯林也都在个人层面履行天课,并希望它成为社会制度的一部分,但大多数国家并没有关于天课的法律制度。在每个时代,都有一些吝啬之人,因为贪恋积聚而不肯缴纳天课。过去,这类人会被政府强制缴纳,但如今在大多数穆斯林国家,由于缺乏执法,也没有天课的法律实施,这些吝啬的富人便不再缴纳天课。

The above question would not have arisen if there were not gross contradictions in Muslim societies today. On one hand there are still Muslims who hold to the basics of Islam, and Islam is the official religion in most Muslim countries. Yet Islamic law has been stripped from the legislation system of most Muslim lands. Take zakah as an example. Although it is one of the pillars of Islam, and although many Muslims implement it individually and would like it to be part of their social system, most countries do not have a legal system for zakah. In all eras there are stingy persons whose love of accumulation prevents them from paying zakah. Such people used to be forced to pay it by the government, but now the lack of law enforcement, and the lack of zakah act in most Muslim countries, leaves these miserly wealthy persons unzakated.

在大多数情况下，从伊斯兰教法向西方引进法律的转变，是十九世纪及二十世纪上半叶西方殖民主义统治穆斯林土地的结果。殖民主义在文化和立法上的影响，比军事占领深远得多，也对穆斯林社会更加危险。在侵略军撤出大多数穆斯林土地之后，我们发现自己所拥有的刑法典并非伊斯兰的，其中卖淫、色情、夜总会、通奸和饮酒都已被合法化；民法典也并非伊斯兰的，其中利息及其他非法交易被允许，以致社会和经济活动被外国人和少数群体所主导。我们还发现自己所拥有的社会准则和财政法规取消了天课，并征收了与伊斯兰制度格格不入的各种税赋。更加令人痛心的是文化殖民主义，它源于西方在军事、经济和立法上对穆斯林土地的严重控制。由于文化殖民主义的影响，我们看到一些只有名义上的"穆斯林"，他们甚至反对重新确立天课制度及其他伊斯兰改革。例如埃及议会中一些所谓的穆斯林议员，就曾反对重新恢复天课法，理由是他们希望自己的国家像欧洲西方国家那样实行世俗化，与宗教脱离。

In most cases, the transfer from Islamic law to imported Western laws was a result of Western colonialism that dominated Muslim lands in the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century. The cultural and legislative impact of colonialism was far deeper and more dangerous to Muslim society than military occupation. After the aggressive troops withdrew from most Muslim lands we found ourselves with penal codes that are not Islamic, whereby prostitution, pornography, night clubs, adultery, and drinking are legalized; with civil codes that is not Islamic, whereby interest and other unlawful transactions are made permissible in such a way that social and economic activities become dominated by foreigners and minorities. We found ourselves with social standards and financial codes whereby zakah is wiped out and taxes alien to the Islamic system are imposed. More painful even, is cultural colonialism that resulted from the heavy impact of military, economic, and legislative domination of the West on Muslim lands. As a result of cultural colonialism, we find "geographic" or nominal Muslims who even oppose the idea of re-establishing zakah and other Islamic reforms, like some so-called Muslims members of the Egyptian parliament who objected to the proposed re-installment of zakah law, on the grounds that they want their country secular and detached from religion like Western states in Europe.

如今，穆斯林政府被要求在社会组织的各个方面采用伊斯兰制度，尤其要给予天课足够的重视，设立一个独立的部门来征收和分配天课，天课是伊斯兰教的第三根支柱。有必要制定一部精确而详细的天课法，以消除天课与其他税收之间的重复征收，并使缴纳天课的穆斯林在经济上不致比非穆斯林少数群体处于不利地位。

Muslim governments today are called upon to adopt the Islamic system in all aspects of societal organization, and especially to give sufficient attention to zakah and establish an autonomous department to collect and distribute zakah, the third pilar of Islam. It is necessary to enact an accurate and detailed law of zakah whereby duality with other taxes is eliminated, and Muslim zakah payers are not disadvantaged financially as compared to non-Muslim minorities.

穆斯林个人也被要求向国家缴纳天课（扎卡特），前提是国家负责征收；如果国家不征收，则向为此目的设立的机构缴纳，或者至少由个人自行施舍，因为这是伊斯兰教的一项基本功修。

Muslim individuals are also called upon to pay zakah to the state, if the state collects it, and if not, to organizations established for such purposes, or at least individually, because this is a basic rite of Islam.

我们有一些著名学者在不同时期给出的宗教意见，认为穆斯林纳税人可以怀有这样的意图：所缴纳的税款全部或部分用于履行天课（zakah）。其中有伊玛目纳瓦维（al Nawawi），他说："沙斐仪学派一致认为，不义征收的捐税不能代替什一税（'ushr）。但如果政府征收此类捐税以代替什一税（农产品天课），学者们对于什一税的义务是否由此而履行，有两种意见。正确的意见是，这样的缴纳可以履行应尽的什一税。如果国家所征收的数额少于应尽的什一税，缴纳者必须补足其差额。"¹ 尽管这段话中提到的捐税与当代的税收并非相去甚远，但需要注意的是，纳瓦维所说的是"如果这类捐税是代替天课而征收的"，而今天的政府并无以此代替天课的意图，其税收收入也不用于天课的受益人。

We have religious opinions given at different times by renowned scholars that Muslim taxpayers may hold the intention that taxes they pay are wholly or partially in fulfillment of zakah. Among them is al Nawawi, who says, "Shafi'ites agree that levies collected unjustly do not stand in place of 'ushr. But if the government takes such levies in place of 'ushr (zakah on agriculture) scholars have two opinions on whether the obligation of 'ushr is thus fulfilled or not. The correct one is that such payment fulfills the required 'ushr. If the amount collected by the state is less than the required 'ushr the difference must be paid by the payers."1 Although levies referred to in this statement are not far-removed from contemporary taxes, it is important to observe that al Nawawi says "If such levies are collected in place of zakah," while governments today do not have in mind to collect such taxes in place of zakah nor to they expend their proceeds on zakah deservants.

与此类似，一位罕百里学派的学者说："有人问艾哈迈德，某个地区的政府拿走人们一半农产品，他回答说：'这是不公正的，政府没有这样的权利。'随后又有人问，交纳者是否还要把另一半的天课分发出去。他回答说：'所交给政府的，就足以履行应尽的天课。'如果主人也抱着同样的意图。"2 伊本·泰米叶据传说过："政府以马克斯（赋税）的名义征收的款项，若抱着缴纳天课的意图而交付，应尽的天课即已履行，尽管这类交付并不采取天课的形式。"3 这段引文似乎与他在《法特瓦集》中的另一句话相矛盾："统治者以天课之外的名义征收的款项，不能计入天课的缴纳。"4 我想知道这两段引文哪一个是正确的，或者伊本·泰米叶的最终观点是什么？

Similarly, a Hanbalite writer says, "Ahmad was asked about a land in which the government takes half of one's produce. He answered, 'that is unjust. The government does not have such a right.' Then he was asked whether the payer must distribute zakah on the other half. He answered, what is paid the government fulfills the obligated zakah.' If the owner makes his intention likewise."2 Ibn Taimiyah is quoted to have said, "levies taken by the government in the name of maks (taxes) can be given with the intention of paying zakah and obligated zakah is thus fulfilled, although such payments do not take the form of zakah."3 This quote from Ibn Taimiyah seems to contradict his statement in al Fatawa, "What is collected by rulers in names other than that of zakah cannot be counted as zakah payment."4 I wonder which of these two quotes is the correct one, or what was the final opinion of Ibn Taimiyah?

无论这些观点背后的动机如何，它们的提出，是为了在压力之下避免加重真诚穆斯林的负担，因为他们当时已经承担着多种苛捐杂税。当代社会的情况略有不同：人们推定，现有的税收是为了向民众提供基本服务所必需的，包括国防，也就是说，现有税收具有可接受的正当理由。因此，即便纳税人有意以此履行天课，这些税收也不能抵充天课。

Whatever the motivation behind such opinions, they were given under presure to avoid over-burdening sincere Muslims who were already charged several oppressive taxes. The case in contemporary society is slightly different since it is presumed that existing taxes are necessitated to provide people with basic services, including defense, i.e. it is presumed that existing taxes have acceptable justifications. Therefore, these taxes cannot make up for zakah, even with the intention of the payer to pay zakah.

大多数学者不认可在缴纳税款时同时意图支付天课，并且强烈反对允许这种做法的观点。沙斐仪学派的伊本·哈哲尔·海赛米在其《重大罪》(al Zawajir)中说：有些腐败的商人认为，他们所缴纳的马克斯（maks）如果心中意图支付天课，就可以计入天课。这种说法毫无根据。依照沙斐仪学派，这是虚假而错误的。政府在征收税款时，并不意图将这些税款视为天课，它们在税率和应税财产两方面，也都不是依照伊斯兰教法征收天课。政府征收这些税款的理由是，税款所得需用于军队和穆斯林的公共利益。这一点我在此不想争论，但即便税款是合法的，且其合法条件得到满足，这些税款仍与天课不同，不能视为天课，因为它们甚至不带有天课的名称。有些商人告诉我，他们在把这笔马克斯交给征收人员时，心中意图缴纳天课，而如果这些征收人员把钱交给了不应得天课的人，那是他们自己的问题。

The majority of scholars do not approve of intending zakah payment when taxes are paid, and come down hard against opinions that allow it. Ibn Hajar al Haitami, a Shafi'ite, says in his al Zawajir, Some corrupt merchants think the maks they pay can be counted as zakah if they make the intention of paying zakah. This is an unfounded notion. It is false and incorrect according to the Shafi'ite school. The government -- when it collects taxes -- does not intend to consider these taxes zakah, nor do they collect zakah according to Shari'ah, regarding both rates and zakatable assets. The government levies these taxes with the claim that their proceeds need to be spent on the army and public interests of Muslims, which I do not want to argue at this point, but given that taxes are legitimate and their proper conditions are fulfilled, these taxes are different from zakah and must not be considered zakah for they do not even carry its name. Some merchants tell me that they make intention of paying zakah when they give this maks to collectors, and if these collectors give it to non zakah deservants, it is their problem.

这种观点也是错误的。maks的受领者通常并不应得天课。他们大多富有或有权势，而且有能力谋生。凭什么理由，天课可以给这类人呢？商人的自私使他们变得盲目，以致分不清是非对错。他们所想的，只是免除本应履行的天课，因为无论如何他们都被迫缴纳这些税款。他们必须明白，真主所规定的天课，不能用缴税来代替，即便缴税时怀着他们邪恶的意图也不行。至于那些苛捐杂税本身，缴纳者会因其所受的压迫而获得真主的回报。穆斯林学者把maks的征收者视为窃贼或持械抢劫者。事实上，他们可能比这更加恶劣。显然，被持械抢劫者劫走的钱财，不能被被劫者视为天课。穆斯林学者屡次警告穆斯林纳税人：在向maks征收者缴税时，心中打算以此完成天课，是不恰当且毫无意义的。学者们认为，做这种事的人是无知的。5

This idea is also false. maks recipients do not usually deserve zakah. They are all rich or powerful and can earn. By what virtue can zakah be given to this kind of people? The selfishness of the merchants makes them blind so they do not see right from wrong. All they want is to save themselves the properly due zakah, since they are forced anyway to pay these taxes. They must realize that zakah obligated by God is not fulfilled by tax payments, even if accompanied by their wicked intentions. As for the oppressive taxes themselves, payers of those taxes are rewarded by God in as much as they are oppressed. Muslim scholars consider maks collectors thieves or armed robbers. They may, in fact, be much worse. Evidently, money collected by armed robbers cannot be considered zakah by the robbed. Muslim scholars warn Muslim payers repeatedly that making the intention of paying zakah when they pay taxes to maks collectors is improper and meaningless. Scholars consider those who do that ignorant.5

伊本·阿比丁是哈乃斐派学者，在引述伊本·哈哲尔的一些观点之后，接着说道：如今，收取税款（Maks）的人与政府签订合同，约定向政府缴纳一定数额，然后自己从中征收，手段极其压迫和粗暴。