6.2. 第二节：有义务缴纳的人，以及需要为其缴纳的人 - 《杰出法学家入门》 | Quran Course

6.2. 第二节：有义务缴纳的人，以及需要为其缴纳的人 - 《杰出法学家入门》 | Quran Course

0% read · 2 min left

《杰出法学家入门》 Bookmark

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

6.2. 第二节：有义务缴纳的人，以及需要为其缴纳的人

6.2. Section 2: The person on whom it is obligatory and the persons on whose behalf it is to be paid

by Ibn Rushd2 min readViewed 41 times

他们一致认为,命令中的受命者是穆斯林,无论男女、未成年人或成年人、奴隶或自由人,依据的是前面所引伊本·欧麦尔的圣训。唯有莱斯所持的异见:他免除了首都居民缴纳开斋赈(zakat al-fitr)的义务,而只将其限定于乡村居民,但他对此没有证据。另一种异见见于那些不主张代孤儿缴纳此项义务的人的观点。至于代何人缴纳此项义务,他们一致认为,每个有能力为自己缴纳的人都有义务为自己缴纳,因为这是对人身的天课,而不是对财产的天课。若子女未成年且没有独立的财产,人也有义务代其缴纳;奴隶若无任何财产,其主人同样有义务代其缴纳。至于此外的情形,他们存在分歧。

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.

大多数学者认为,这种天课不以应负宗教功修责任者（即成年且理智的穆卡拉夫）为前提,这与其他形式的功修不同。因此,此项义务适用于未成年人和奴隶（也适用于精神失常者）。（这笔天课由其监护人或抚养人代为缴纳。）那些认为该裁决的根本依据是监护权（wilaya）的学者说,监护人（wali）应为其监护之下的所有人缴纳赈济（sadaqa，即开斋捐）。那些认为其依据是抚养义务的学者则说,应由抚养人为法律规定其有义务抚养的所有人缴纳开斋捐。之所以产生这种分歧,是因为双方在未成年人和奴隶这两种情况上意见一致,而正是这两种情况表明：这种天课并不仅仅与成年穆卡拉夫的个人相关联,而是在存在监护权和抚养义务的情况下,代他人缴纳的。因此,马立克认为根本依据是抚养义务,而艾布·哈尼法认为此处的根本依据是监护权,也正因如此,二人在妻子这一问题上产生了分歧。有传述以圣训的形式（marfūʿ）记载说：“你们应为所有你们负有抚养责任的人缴纳开斋捐。”但此段圣训并不广为人知。

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.

他们在奴隶的问题上存在若干分歧。第一点，如我们已经提到的，是如果奴隶拥有财产，其主人是否需要为其缴纳天课。这一分歧基于奴隶能否拥有财产的问题。第二点是关于不信教的奴隶，主人是否应为其代缴天课。马立克、沙斐仪和艾哈迈德认为，主人无需为其不信教的奴隶缴纳天课。库法学派则认为，主人应为其代缴天课。他们分歧的原因源于对伊本·欧麦尔圣训中一处增补内容的争论。该圣训中有“穆斯林”一词，纳菲尔对此持有异议，而作为该圣训传述人的伊本·欧麦尔本人，也认为应当为不信教的奴隶代缴天课。分歧还有另一个原因，即主人为奴隶缴纳天课，其依据是奴隶是否为负有宗教义务的人（ mukallaf ），还是因为奴隶本身是一种财产。主张依据在于奴隶是负有义务之人的学者，将信仰作为条件；而主张依据在于奴隶是财产的学者则不做此条件要求。后一类学者认为，学者们的共识可以说明这一点：如果奴隶获得释放，而主人未曾为其缴纳开斋天课，主人并无补缴的义务，正如赎罪的情况一样。第三点是关于立约赎身的奴隶（ mukātab ）。马立克和艾布·萨尔仪认为，主人应为其缴纳开斋天课。沙斐仪、艾布·哈尼法和艾哈迈德认为，主人无义务为其代缴。产生分歧的原因在于，立约赎身的奴隶究竟应视为自由人还是奴隶，其身份存在摇摆。第四点是为经商而购入的奴隶。马立克、沙斐仪和艾哈迈德认为，主人有义务代其奴隶缴纳开斋捐（Zakat al-fitr）。而艾卜·哈尼法及其之外的人则认为，用于经商的奴隶不需要缴纳任何施舍（sadaqa）。这一分歧的原因在于类比与一般性含义之间的冲突。前述圣训中“奴隶”一词的一般含义，表明用于经商的奴隶与其他奴隶一样都应缴纳天课。在艾卜·哈尼法看来，这一一般含义通过类比被限定了，原因在于两种天课集中在同一类财产上。他们在奴隶所拥有的奴隶的情况上也存在类似的分歧，相关的例子有很多。

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.