关于此主题,学者们一致认为:对于放牧于(公共)草场的羊,羊数达到四十只时,应缴纳一只羊,直至一百二十只。超过一百二十只的部分,在达到两百只之前,应缴纳两只羊。若羊数超过两百只,则应缴纳三只羊,直至三百只;若超过三百只,则每一百只羊应缴纳一只羊。这是多数学者的观点。唯有哈桑·本·萨利赫的看法不同,他认为羊数达到三百零一只时,应缴纳四只羊;羊数达到四百零一只时,应缴纳五只羊。这一观点曾由曼苏尔从易卜拉欣处转述。而从《天课书》中流传下来的可靠圣训,支持多数学者的观点。
They agreed under this topic that for sheep reared on (free) grazing one sheep is due if the number reaches forty sheep, up to one hundred and twenty. For the excess over one hundred and twenty there are two sheep up to a number of two hundred. If the number exceeds two hundred, three sheep are due up to three hundred, and if it exceeds three hundred, then, for every hundred sheep there is one sheep. This is the opinion of the majority, except al-Hasan ibn Salih, who said that if the number of sheep reaches three hundred and one the number of sheep due on them are four, and if the number is four hundred and one, five sheep are due on them. This opinion has been related from Mansur from Ibrahim. The authentic traditions related from the book of sadaqa support the opinion of the majority.
他们一致认为山羊应与绵羊合并计算,但在收税官应从哪一类(种类)牲畜中收取天课的问题上存在分歧。马立克说,应从数量较多的那一类中收取天课;若两类数量相等,收税官可自行选择。艾卜·哈尼法说,若两类牲畜不同,则由收税官自行选择。沙斐仪说,应从各类牲畜中收取中等品质的牲畜,其依据是欧麦尔(愿真主喜悦他)所传的一段话:“我们对那些由牧人放养的羔羊进行估价,但不收取它们;也不收取供食用而育肥的羊,不收取正在哺乳或即将产羔的母羊,也不收取公羊。我们只收取六个月大的羊以及一岁或两岁的羊。”这样既兼顾了选择的余地,又保证了中等品质。
They agreed that goats are to be combined with sheep, but they differed about the category (species) from which the collector is to take zakat. Malik said that he is to take the zakat from the category which has the greater number (of animals), and if they are equal the collector has a choice. Abu HanTfa said that if the categories differ the collector is given a choice. Al- Shafi i c said that he is to take average quality animals from the different categories because of an opinion related from ‘Umar (God be pleased with him) that “we assess them for young lambs that are tended by the shepherd, but we do not take them, nor do we take sheep fattened for consumption, nor those that have given birth to offspring or those about to do so, nor the rams. We do take sheep that are.six months and those that are one or two-year-old”. This ensures a balance between choice and an average quality.
各省的法学家一致认为,公山羊以及非常老迈或一只眼睛失明的牲畜,不应被用作天课(sadaqa),因为这一点已由天课之书所确立,除非征收者认为它们符合贫困者的利益。他们在完全失明或有缺陷的牲畜是否应计入主人羊群的数目上存在分歧。马利克和沙斐仪认为应当计入,而据传艾布·哈尼法并不主张计入。分歧的根源在于:不加限定的用语,是否应当被理解为既包括身体健全的牲畜,也包括身体不健全的牲畜。
The jurists of the provinces agreed that male (billy) goats and animals that are very old or blind in one eye are not to be. accepted for sadaqa, because this has been established from the book of sadaqa, unless the collector considers them to be in the interest of the needy. Theyjdisagreed about animals that are totally blind or have a defect whether they are to be included in the count of the owner’s flock. Malik and al-Shafi T held that c they are ,to be counted, while it is related from Abu HanTfa that he did not hold that they be counted. The reason for disagreement stems from whether the unqualified term should be considered to include both the physically’sound and those that are not so.
他们在这个问题上存在分歧：如果羊群不足达到应缴天课的最低数额（nisab），其幼崽是否应与母羊合并计算以凑足该数额。马立克认为应当与母羊合并计算，而al-ShaficT、Abu HanTfa和Abu Thawr认为不应与羔羊合并计算，除非母羊本身已足以达到应缴天课的数额。他们分歧的依据是<Umar（愿真主喜悦他）的一段话：他下令将羔羊与母羊合并计算，且不从它们中取出任何天课。一部分法学家理解为这仅适用于母羊已足以达到应缴数额的情况；另一部分法学家则将其理解为不加限定的一般情况。我认为Zahirites不对幼小的羔羊征收天课，也不将它们计入，无论母羊是否已达到应缴数额，因为该物种的无限定称谓并不包括它们。
They disagreed under this topic on whether the offspring are to be counted with the mothers in order to complete the nisab, if the flock is falling short of the nisab. Malik said that they are to be counted with them, while al-ShaficT, Abu HanTfa, and Abu Thawr said that they are not to be counted with the lambs, unless the mothers are completing the nisab. The reason for their disagreement is the saying of <Umar (God be pleased with him) when he ordered that they be counted with the lambs and nothing should be taken from them as sadaqa. A group of jurists understood that this is to be done when the mothers are completing the nisab. Another group of jurists understood this in unqualified terms. I believe that the Zahirites do not impose zakat on young lambs nor do they count them irrespective of the mothers completing the nisab, as the unqualified term for the species does not include them.
大多数法学家认为，共有财产会影响应缴天课（zakat）的数额。持此观点者又在共有是否影响应纳天课的基数（nisab）上存在分歧。艾布·哈尼法及其门徒则认为，共有对应缴数额和基数都不产生任何影响。其原因在于，马立克、沙斐仪以及各地区的大多数法学家认为，共有者应当像单独一人所有那样缴纳天课。他们在两点上存在分歧：第一，共有者的基数是否应按一个所有者的基数计算，即使每人的份额分别已达到基数；还是说，如果他们各自单独拥有该财产，则应按每人的基数分别缴纳天课。第二，在这种情况下生效的共有形式的界定。
Most of the jurists maintained that co-ownership has an affect on the amount of zakat due. Those who upheld this disagreed over whether it affects the nisab. Abu HanTfa and his disciples did not consider co-ownership ,to have any effect, either on the amount due or on the amount of An explanation for this is that Malik, al-ShaficT, and the majority of the jurists of the provinces maintained that co-owners are to pay zakat as a single owner. They disagreed about this oh two points. First, whether the nisab of co-owners is to be treated as the nisab for one owner even if the share of each reaches the nisab separately, or are they to pay zakat on the nisab for each owner separately if they own the msofc individually. Second, about the description of the co- ownership that is effective in this case.
导致他们在以下问题上分歧的原因，首先在于：共有是否在应纳天课的最低限额（nisab）及应缴数额上产生效力。其分歧源于对先知（愿主赐其平安与祝福ﷺ）所传圣训的理解，即《天课之书》中所载的那句话：“可区分的类别不得合并，已合并的类别不得分开计算以应天课，由两种混合的类别构成的，应平均分摊。”各派依照自身的前提假设来诠释这段圣训的含义。
The reason for their disagreement, first, over whether co-ownership is effective in the nisab and in the amount due, is their dispute over the meaning of what is established about the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) through the f book of sadaqa that “distinguishable categories are not to be combined nor are combined categories to be distinguished under the apprehension of zakat, and those composed of two mixed categories are to be settled jointly (or equally)”. Each group interpreted the meaning of this tradition in accordance with their own assumptions.
那些主张混合财产在确定尼萨布和应缴数额时有效，或仅在确定应缴数额时有效的人认为，先知（愿真主赐予他慰藉与祝福）所说的“由两种混合财产构成的，应共同（或平均）结算”以及“可区分的财产不得合并，合并的财产不得区分”，清楚表明合伙共有的财产等同于单一个人的所有权。这段圣训限制了先知（愿真主赐予他慰藉与祝福）所说的“不足五头骆驼者，无天课”。依马立克及其门徒之见，这一限制仅适用于天课；依沙斐仪及其门徒之见，则同时适用于天课和尼萨布的确定。
那些不主张这种合伙共有观点的人则说，合伙人有时也被称为共有人。先知（愿真主赐予他慰藉与祝福）所说的“可区分的财产不得合并，合并的财产不得区分”，很可能是禁止收取者为了使某人承担过多天课而拆分其财产，例如一个人有一百二十只羊，却将其财产三次分成每组四十只；或者将其财产与他人的财产合并，使合并后的数量产生更多天课。他们说，如果这段圣训存在这些可能性，那么最好不要用它来限制既定且已达成共识的原则，即尼萨布和应缴数额应以个人所有权为基础来计算。 那些坚持以"混合"为依据的学者认为,"混合"一词应当从混合本身来理解,而不是从合伙的含义来理解。如果确实如此,那么先知(愿真主赐福于他并使他平安)所说的"应当平均分摊"表明,双方所负的义务具有单个人的裁决,而且"应当平均分摊"这句话也意味着两种财产的混合并不意味着两个合伙人,因为这里不存在合伙人之间的结算问题,天课是从合伙的资本中征收的。因此,那些将观点局限于这一含义、且不就尼萨布进行类比的学者认为,若共有者每人都拥有尼萨布,则应当按单个人的天课来征收。而那些认为尼萨布的裁决取决于应缴天课的裁决的学者则说,他们的尼萨布是单个人的尼萨布,正如他们的天课是单个人的天课。
Those who maintained that mixed categories were effective in the determination of the nisab and the amount due, or in* the determination of the amount due alone, said that the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “those composed of two mixed categories are to be settled jointly (or equally)” and “distinguishable categories are not to be combined and combined categories are not to be distinguished” indicate clearly that co-ownership in combined property is like the ownership of a single individual. This tradition restricts the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is no sadaqa in less than five camels”. This applies either for purposes of zakat alone, according to Malik and his disciples, or both for purposes of the determination of zakat and nisab, according to al- Shafi T and his c disciples. Those who did not uphold this view of co-ownership said that the partners are sometimes referred to as co-owners, and it is likely that the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “distinguishable categories are not to be combined and combined categories are not to be distinguished” amount to a proscription for the collector not to divide up the property of one individual in such a way that he becomes liable to excessive zakat, as in the case of the individual who has one hundred and twenty sheep and whose property is divided up into units of forty thrice, or by combining his property with- that of another so that the combined number yields more zakat. They said that if these probabilities exist in this tradition, it is better not to restrict the established and agreed upon principles with it, that is, the rule that the nisab and the amount due are to be worked out on the basis of individual ownership. Those who upheld the view based on mixing said that the term “mixing” is’better understood in terms of mixing itself rather than in the meaning of partnership, and if this is the case, then, the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “are to be settled jointly (or equally)” indicate that the duty owed by both has the hukm of a single individual, and also that these words, “are to be settled jointly (or equally)”, imply that the mixing of two things does not imply two partners, as settlement between partners is not to be conceived here, because zakat is being taken from the capital of the partnership. Thus, those who limited their view to this meaning and did not draw an analogy for the nisab said that co-owners are to be subjected to the zakat of a single individual if each one of them possesses the nisab. Those who considered the hukm of the nisab to be dependent upon the hukm of the zakat due said that their nisab is the nisab of a single individual, just as their zakat is the zakat of a single individual.
各个学派都依照自己的观点来解释先知(愿主赐予他慈恩和平安)的话:“可区分的类别不得合并,已合并的类别不得分开。”马立克(愿主喜悦他)说,先知(愿主赐予他慈恩和平安)所说的“已合并的类别不得分开”,其意思是:若有两位合伙人,各自拥有一百零一只羊,那么他们共同应缴纳的天课是三只羊;但如果他们分开,每人只需缴纳一只羊。至于“可区分的类别不得合并”,他说其意思是:若有三个人,每人拥有四十只羊,那么他们若合并羊群,则只需缴纳一只羊。因此,在他看来,这一禁令针对的是那些各自都独立达到尼萨布(应纳天课的最低数额)的合伙人。而沙斐仪则认为,先知(愿主赐予他慈恩和平安)所说的“已合并的类别不得分开”,其意思是:若有两人共同拥有四十只羊,他们若将羊群分开,就会使自己不再需要缴纳天课,因为在他看来,尼萨布是以合伙人的总和计算的,而这一总和的裁决与单独一人相同。
Each group interpreted the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “distinguishable categories are not to be combined and combined categories are not to be distinguished”, in accordance with his own views. Malik (God be pleased with him) said that the meaning of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “combined categories are not to be distinguished”, is that if there are two co-owners each with a share of one hundred and one sheep, their total liability would be three sheep, but if they separate each will pay one sheep. The meaning of his words, “distinguishable categories are not to be combined,” he said, is that if there are three individuals each having forty sheep, they would pay one sheep if they combined their flocks. In his opinion, then, the proscription is directed toward those co-owners each of whom possesses the nisab independently. Al-ShafiT, on the other hand, said that the meaning of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “combined categories are not to be distinguished”, is that if there are two persons who jointly own forty sheep, their separating their flocks would cause them not to be liable for zakat, as the nisab, in his view, is that of the co-owners, which is in its hukm like that of an individual.
那些主张混合（خلطة）影响天课计算的学者，对于何种混合才有效力，意见不一。沙斐仪（al-Shafi'i）认为，混合的条件是他们把牲畜合在一起，共同放牧，集中挤奶，共同饮水，并且它们的幼畜也混在一起。在他看来，就整体而言，混合（财产）与合伙并无区别，因此他认为每位合伙人都应以其所占份额计算尼萨布，如前文所述。马立克（Malik）的观点则认为，共同所有者是指在出资、饮水、放牧、看管和幼畜方面都有参与的人。他的弟子们对于是否需要遵守其中某些条件，或全部条件，意见不一。他们分歧的原因，源于“混合”一词的多义性，因此，一些法学家不承认混合对天课计算的效力。阿布·穆罕默德·伊本·哈兹姆·安达卢西（Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm al-Andalusi）即持此观点。
Those who upheld the view based on mixing differed as to what kind of mixing is effective in The determination of zakat. Al-ShaficT said that the condition of mixing is that they mix their flocks together so that they tend them jointly, gather the milk in one place, make them graze jointly, drink jointly, and that their offsprings are also mixed up together. There is no difference, in his view, as a whole between mixing (property) and partnership, and he, therefore, considers the nisab as belonging to each of the partners, as has preceded. In Malik’s view the co-owners are those who participate in terms of contribution, drinking, grazing, shepherding, and offspring. His disciples disagreed about the observance of some of these conditions or of all of them. The reason for their disagreement stems from the equivocality in the term “mixing”, and for that reason a group of jurists did not uphold the effectiveness of mixing in the determination of zakat. This was the opinion of Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm al-AndalusT.