大多数学者规定，金、银和牲畜的天课义务，须以哈ওল（一年周期）届满为条件。其依据是：这一规定得自四位哈里发，在众伴中广为人知，并被普遍实行；而且他们认为，若非此前已有来自先知的确定依据，这一规定不可能如此广泛地为人所知和实行，且无人反对。据伊本·欧麦尔传述，先知（愿主赐他平安与祝福）在一段圣训（marfūʿ）中说：“财产未满一个哈ওল，则不需缴纳天课。”各地的教法学家一致认同此说。第一代人中并无异议，唯有伊本·阿拔斯和穆阿维叶的说法除外。 分歧的原因在于，关于此事并无确定的圣训。在这一主题上，学者们对八个著名问题存在分歧。第一，若我们主张矿产的应缴之数为十分之一的四分之一，那么是否要求矿产须满一个哈ওল？第二，资本利润是否要考虑哈ওল？第三，应纳天课之物的增益是否需满哈ওল？第四，若我们主张债款须缴天课，那么债款是否要考虑哈ওल届满？第五，若我们主张商品须缴天课，那么商品是否要考虑哈ওল？第六，牲畜所产生的收益是否需满哈ওল？第七，羊羔是否须满哈ওল——若我们主张羊羔应并入母羊计算：或依主张母羊须达到尼萨布（起征点）方可计算者的意见（即沙斐仪与艾布·哈尼法），或依不作此要求者的意见（即马立克的观点）。第八，在哈ওল届满之前预先提取天课是否允许？

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.

这个问题涉及矿产。阿什-沙菲仪（Al-Shafi'i）在矿产中同时考虑了哈沃勒（hawl，一年期满）和尼萨卜（nisab，起征点）；而马立克（Malik）则只考虑尼萨卜，不考虑哈沃勒。

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.

他们之间分歧的原因，源于这类财物究竟更接近于地里出产的作物，还是更接近于拥有的金银，这一类比本身存在摇摆。那些认为它们类似于地里出产之物的人，没有为其规定 AaW（原文如此）；而那些认为它们类似于金银的人，则规定了 hawl（一整年）的条件。与金银的相似之处更为明显，真主至知。

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.

关于资本利润的哈byl(周年期限)，法学家们存在分歧，主要有三种观点。沙斐仪认为，利润的哈byl应从利润产生之日起计算，无论本金本身是否达到尼萨布。据传，欧麦尔·伊本·阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹曾下令，贸易利润在经过一个哈byl之前不应征收天课。马立克认为，利润的哈byl与本金的哈byl一致，即本金的周年期满时，利润同时成为应纳天课之物，无论本金本身是否达到尼萨布，或是加上利润后才达到尼萨布。阿布·乌拜德说，除他自己的弟子外，其他法学家都不遵循这一观点。 另一派法学家则区分经历哈byl的本金是否达到尼萨布。他们说，如果本金本身达到尼萨布，利润便与之一同应纳天课；但如果本金未达到尼萨布，则不征收天课（即使加上利润后达到尼萨布）。持此观点的有奥扎仪、阿布·萨乌尔和阿布·哈尼法。 他们分歧的原因在于利润介于两种判断之间：一是作为收益所得财富的判断，二是作为本金的判断。认为利润类似于产生的收益者，主张利润必须独立经历一个哈byl；认为利润类似于本金者，则主张利润采用本金的判断，但类比的条件之一是本金应负有天课义务，而只有达到尼萨布时才会如此。正因如此，马立克学派认为以本金利润作类比的依据较为薄弱。看来，马立克（愿真主喜悦他）所依据的是资本利润与羊的幼畜之间的相似性，但羊的幼畜这一案例本身也存在争议。 同样的观点也有关于马立克的传述，与多数人的意见一致。

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.

这个问题涉及“新增财产”（fawatid）的周年期（hawl）。学者们一致认为：如果财产不足法定起征额（nisab），而所有者又获得了一笔新增财产（利润除外），使其达到起征额，那么总额的周年期从新增财产到手之日起独立计算。他们的分歧在于：当新增财产到达所有者手中时，他已经拥有达到起征额的财产，并且该财产的周年期已经届满。马立克说，新增财产应依其自身的周年期缴纳天课（如果它达到起征额），不应并入现已应缴天课的财产中。沙斐仪也持相同的观点。艾布·哈尼法及其门徒以及赛吾利则认为，所有新增财产都应以本金的周年期为准缴纳天课，前提是本金达到起征额。在他们看来，利润也是如此。

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.

他们之间分歧的原因在于：新增的财产是应当适用其所附加于其上的那笔财产的裁决，还是应当适用未与其他财产合并的财产的裁决。那些主张其裁决是独立于其他财产的原有财产之裁决的人，即应缴天课（天课）的财产，认为新增部分不需缴纳天课。那些认定其裁决为应缴天课财产之裁决，并视之为同一笔财产（因为天课是基于该财产达到尼萨布而应缴的）的人，则依照应缴天课财产的周年（哈狄）来计算其周年。 先知（愿主赐福并平安于他）所说的“财产未满一个周年，则不需缴纳天课”，其一般含义表明：除非有证据支持，新获得的财产不应与手中已有的财产合并计算。看来，艾卜·哈尼法在此问题上是依据对现金与牲畜的类比。他在此议题上所依据的原则之一是：周年的成立并不要求财产的每一组成部分在全年中都达到尼萨布，只要在周年的开始和结束时达到尼萨布，并且周年在其中一部分财产上成立即可。因此，依他的看法，如果财产在周年开始时达到尼萨布，之后其中部分财产遗失或损毁，使其低于尼萨布，而在周年结束时又有新增财产使其达到尼萨布，则仍应缴纳天课。在他看来，这种情况对这类财产而言仍然成立，因为周年尚未完整结束；实质上这仍是同一笔财产，各组成部分都相同，只是数量更多，只是在周年的不同阶段曾经低于尼萨布。

The reason for their disagreement is whether the fresh addition takes the hukm of wealth on which the addition has occurred or it takes the hukm of wealth that has not accrued upon other wealth. Those who maintained that its hukm is the hukm of the original wealth that is independent of other wealth, that is, wealth upon which zakat is due, said that there is no zakat on the addition. Those who determined for it the hukm of wealth on which zakat is due and who consider it to be the same wealth because zakat is due upon this wealth as it amounts to a nisab, considered its hawl in accordance with the hawl of wealth on which zakat is due. The general meaning in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is no zakat on wealth unless one hawl has passed over it”, implies that newly acquired wealth should not be added to the wealth in hand except on the basis of an evidence. It appears that Abu HanTfa relied in this upon the analogy of liquid assets over cattle. One of his principles, on which he relies in this topic, is that it is not a condition for the hawl that all the constituent parts of the wealth should comprise the nisab throughout the year, and it is enough that the nisab can be found at both ends of the year, and the hawl in one of the parts of the wealth. Thus, in his view, if the wealth constituted the nisab at the beginning of the hawl after which parts of it were lost or destroyed making it less than the nisab, but at the end of the hawl there were additions to it that completed the nisab, zakat would be levied upon it. This situation exists for him in this kind of wealth as the hawl has not been completed, yet. it is in essence the same wealth in all its constituent parts; in fact, it is more but it had shed the nisab at different stages of the hawl.

这个问题涉及在我们认为贷款（借给他人的款项）须缴纳天课的前提下，如何计算其哈勒（hawl，满一年的周期）。 一派学者认为，对于此类款项，应从其开始成为贷款之时起计算哈勒，并在其存续期间征收天课。如果它延续一个哈勒，则为一个哈勒；如果它延续若干个哈勒，则为相应的若干个哈勒。也就是说，若只持续一个哈勒，则征收一次天课；若持续数年，则按年数征收天课。 另一派学者认为，即使贷款在债务人处滞留了数年，也只需按一年缴纳天课。 还有一派学者认为，哈勒因债务而被推迟。主张从放贷之日起因债务而推迟哈勒的人，并不认可对贷款征收天课；而主张按贷款滞留的年数征收天课的人，则是基于贷款与手中现有财产相似的理由作出判断。 至于主张即使贷款滞留数年也只按一年缴纳天课的人，我目前不知道他们的依据是什么。因为只要款项仍是贷款，他们要么认为其需缴纳天课，要么认为不需缴纳。如果认为无需缴纳天课，那就无需再讨论；反而须重新开始研讨。如果认为需缴纳天课，那么哈勒要么被规定适用于它，要么不被规定。如果我们规定其适用哈勒，那么按年数计算便成为必须，除非有人说：每当一个哈勒届满而他无法因债务人未付款而缴纳天课时，那一年对他的这项义务即告免除。 由于天课的征收有两个条件:财产实体的存在,以及哈think周年(hawl)的届满,因此在这种情况下,只需缴纳最后一年应付的天课。马立克认为这与为经商而获得的货物相似。依他的观点,这类货物在卖出之前不征收天课,即使它们在他手中留存了若干年。

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.

还有另一个因素与那些多年未被收税官造访的牲畜情况相似。当收税官最终到达并发现牲畜数量减少时，依马立克的观点，他应当依据所见的现存牲畜征收天课。理由在于：随着哈鲁（hawl，满一年）的过去，而所有者未能预先留出天课，依马立克的见解，收税官的到来是在哈鲁过后留出天课的条件，因此，对他在该哈鲁上的索取权就失效了，他应当就以往各年被征税，无论应缴数额是多是少。这与类比相悖，而马立克为此依据的是公议（camal）。另一方面，沙斐仪认为这样的所有者仍须承担责任，因为收税官的到来并非义务成立的条件。与此相关的是，一些法学家主张，所有者不必预先为其财产留出天课，除非他能够将其交付给伊玛目。如果伊玛目缺席，或者没有公正的伊玛目（若所有者认为公正是伊玛目的条件之一），而财产在哈鲁已过、尚未能够交付天课之前被毁，那么所有者对此不承担任何责任。

这与商品的哈沃尔（一年期限）有关，其讨论已在商品的尼萨布这一主题下先行论述。

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

这个问题涉及牲畜的增值。马立克在此问题上的观点与他在现金财产（钱币）问题上的观点相反。原因在于，他以本金为依据来determine增值，前提是本金达到了天课的满足额（nisab），正如艾卜·哈尼法在银币（dirham）和牲畜增值的问题上所做的那样。 艾卜·哈尼法关于增值的观点是：二者有共同的裁决（hukm），即以本金为依据，只要本金达到满足额，无论增值是在羊群中还是在现金财产中。在他看来，利润和后代的增长与增值属于同类。 对马立克而言，利润与后代的增长有共同的裁决，但他区分了现金财产中的增值与牲畜中的增值。 对沙斐仪而言，利润与增值通过为其单独考虑一个独立的哈茅（hawl，满一年期限）而具有共同的裁决；而牲畜的增值与后代也通过将其哈茅与本金一并考虑（本金达到满足额的情况下）而具有共同的裁决。

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.

这是这三位（主要的）法学家观点的总结。看来马立克在牲畜与流动资产之间做了区分，依循欧麦尔的做法；否则，两种情况下的类比是相同的，即利润类似于后代的增长，资本收益类似于牲畜的增殖。这里关于欧麦尔的传述是：他命令官员将幼羊计入应纳天课的数量（nisab），但不从中取任何天课。该传述已在关于nisab的章节中出现过。

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.

本期讨论的是羊羔的哈彻（一年期）是否应当计算。马立克认为，羊羔适用与母羊相同的哈彻，无论母羊是否构成最低限额（尼萨布），这与他关于流动资产所得利润的观点一致。沙斐仪、艾卜·哈尼法和艾卜·萨尔（Abu Thawr）则主张，羊羔的哈彻与母羊的哈彻不同，除非母羊本身构成尼萨布。他们之间的分歧，其原因与他们在利润问题上的分歧相同。

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.

这个问题涉及在周年期（hawl）届满之前缴纳天课。马立克不允许这样做，而艾卜·哈尼法和沙斐仪则允许。两者分歧的原因在于：天课究竟是一种敬拜，还是对贫困者应尽的义务。认为天课是敬拜、并将其比作拜功的人，不允许在规定时间之前缴纳。认为天课类似于可推迟履行的义务的人，则允许像自愿施舍那样，在期限结束之前提前缴纳。沙斐仪依据阿里（Cali）的传述为自己的观点提出论证，即"先知（愿安拉的赞颂与安宁降临他）曾在时间之前预借了阿拔斯的天课"。

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”