Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Volume 3: Zakah on plants and fruit

things which you have earned, and of that which We bring forth from theearth” [alBaqarah 267]. Zakah is called expenditure (nafaqah). Giving thejustification for paying zakah on produce, Allah says: “He it is whoproduces gardens trellised and untrellised, and the date palm and the crops ofdiverse flavors, and the olive, and the pomegranate, like and unlike. Eat ofthe fruit thereof when it produces fruit, and pay its due upon the harvestday” [alAn’am 141]. In his explanation of the word haqq (due) in thepreceding ‘ayah, Ibn ‘Abbas says that by haqq is meant both the obligatoryzakah and the ‘ushr (tithe) and the half-tithe.

Volume3, Page 21a: Zakah on Plants and Fruits at the Time of the Prophet

During the time of the Prophet, upon whom be peace, zakah was levied onwheat, barley, dates, and raisins.

Abu Burdah related from Abu Musa and Mu’azh that when the Messenger of Allah,upon whom be peace, sent the (latter two) to Yemen to teach its inhabitantsIslam, he commanded them to levy sadaqah only on wheat, barley, dates, andraisins. This hadith is related by ad-Daraqutni, al-Hakim, at-Tabarani, andal-Baihaqi.

Commenting on the status of the report, al-Baihaqi says that its chain ismuttasil (uninterrupted) and its narrators are credible.

Whether sadaqah on such items should be considered zakah or not, Ibnal-Munzhir and ibn ‘Abd al-Barr say: “The scholars are of the opinion thatsadaqah is obligatory on wheat, barley, dates, and raisins.” This opinionhas its roots in a saying by Ibn Majah that the Messenger, upon whom be peace,regulated the payment of zakah on wheat, barley, dates, raisins and corn.Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaidullah al-‘Arzumi, a narrator in its chain, however, is ofquestionable status in the eyes of the scholars, and as such, his report is notcredible.

Volume3, Page 22: Plants and Fruits Which Were Not Subject to Zakah

Zakah was not levied on vegetables or fruit, with the exception of grapesand fresh dates (rutab). ‘Ata ibn as-Sa’ib reported that ‘Abdullah ibnal-Mughirah wanted to levy sadaqah on Musa ibn Talha’s vegetables. The latterobjected, saying: “You have no right to do that. The Messenger of Allahused to say: ‘There is no sadaqah on this [vegetables].’ ” This is relatedby ad-Daraqutni, alHakim, and al-Athram in his Sunan. This hadith is mursal.

Musa ibn Talhah says: “Five things [which were subject to zakah] werementioned by the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace: barley, wheat, sult [akind of barley having no husk], raisins, and dates. Whatever else the landproduces is not subject to the ‘ushr. It is also reported that Mu’azh did notlevy sadaqah on vegetables.”

Commenting on the status of these reports, al-Baihaqi says: “All ofthese hadith are of the mursal kind but were reported from differentauthorities. Nevertheless, they confirm each other.” The hadith on thissubject include the sayings of ‘Umar, ‘Ali, and ‘Aishah.

Al-Athram narrated that one of Caliph ‘Umar’s governors wrote to himconceming grape plantations, including peaches and pomegranates which producedtwice as much harvest as the grapes. He wrote back: “There is no ‘ushr(tithe) on them. They pertain to ‘udah–items that cannot be distributed ininheritance.”

At-Tirmizhi agrees with the preceding and says: “The practice [basedupon this] among most jurists is not to levy sadaqah on vegetables.”Al-Qurtubi also supports this: “Zakah is to be levied on the muqtat [landproducts used as stable food] and not on vegetables.” In at-Ta’if, theyused to grow pomegranates, peaches, and citrus, but there is no confirmationthat the Prophet and his successors levied zakah on them.

Ibn al-Qayyim contends: “It was not his [the Prophet’s] practice tolevy zakah on horses, slaves, mules, donkeys, and vegetables, melons,cucumbers, and fruits, which cannot be stored or measured by capacity. The onlyexceptions were grapes and fresh dates. On the latter two kinds, zakah waslevied as a whole, without differentiation whether or not they were dry.”

Volume3, Page 23: The Opinion of Jurists

There is no difference of opinion among jurists concerning the obligatorynature of zakah on plants and fruits. They do, however, differ on the kinds ofplants and fruits which should be subject to zakah. Here is the broad spectrumof opinions on the subject:

Al-Hasan al-Basri and ash-Shu’abi hold that zakah is only on the specifieditems (in the Qur’an and sunnah)–that is corn, dates, and raisins–since otherkinds are not mentioned. Ash-Shaukani upholds this view.

Abu Hanifah maintains that zakah is due on every type of produce of the landincluding vegetables, but excluding what is not intentionally planted andcultivated such as firewood, bamboo, grass, and those trees which bear nofruit. His opinion is based upon the general meaning of the Prophet’s saying:”From what the heavens irrigate, a tithe [is due].” The meaning isgeneral and encompasses all types of arable products, which are planted to makethe land grow, and therefore refers to any agricultural practices similar tothe growing of grains (habb).

Abu Yusuf and Muhammad hold that zakah is payable on every product of theland, provided it lasts the whole year without too much care or treatment. Thisincludes produce measured by capacity, such as grains, or by mass, such ascotton and sugar. If the produce does not last a whole year, such as the twokinds of cucumber (quththa’ and khiyar), watermelons and others of their kind,there is no zakah on them.

Malik holds that zakah is payable on that which is produced on the land andwhich stays, becomes dry, and is planted by human beings. This includes landproduce used as nonperishable food (muqtat), such as safflower and sesameseeds. According to him, there is no zakah on vegetables and fruits such asfigs, pomegranates and apples. Ash-Shaf’i maintains that zakah is payable onany produce, provided the resulting crop is used as regular food which can bestored and planted by human beings, such as grains and barley.

An-Nawawi says: “Our opinion is that there is no zakah on any treesother than palm and grapevines. There is also no zakah on grains other than theone which is or can be stored, and no zakah on vegetables.” Ahmad is ofthe opinion that there is zakah on everything that Allah causes the land toproduce, such as grains and fruits, that can be dried, preserved, measured andplanted by human beings, whether they be considered nonperishable foods, suchas wheat and qutniyyat (including peas, beans, lentils and such other grains),or spices and herbs (ahariz), such as coriander, caraway seeds, or seeds suchas linseed of the fluz plant (kittan seeds), the seeds of the two kinds ofcucumber (quththa’ and khiyar), or safflower and sesame seeds.

According to Ahmad, zakah is also payable on dry fruits such as dates,raisins, apricots, figs, almonds, hazel nuts, and pistachio nuts if thepreceding specifications apply to them. There is no zakah on fresh fruit suchas peaches, pears, apples, apricots, and figs. In the same way, it is not dueon vegetables such as the two kinds of cucumber, watermelons, eggplants,turnips, and carrots.

Volume3, Page 24: Zakah on Olives

An-Nawawi says: “As for olives, our [Shaf’iyyah] view is that there isno zakah on them.” This is also the opinion of Hasan ibn Salih, Ibn AbuLayla, and Abu ‘Ubaid.

Scholars such as as-Zuhri, al-Auza’i, al-Layth, Malik, athThauri, AbuHanifah, and Abu Thaur maintain that there is zakah on olives. Az-Zuhri,al-Layth, and al-Auza’i hold: “Determine its quantity by conjecture(yukharras), and then take its zakah in the form of olive oil,” whileMalik says: “There is no need to compute its quantity by conjecture(yukharras). Take a tithe subsequent to the olives being pressed and attain theweight of five awsuq.”

Volume3, Page 24a: The Origin of the Different Opinions Concerning Zakah on Plantsand Fruits

Of their differences on the payment of zakah pertaining to plants andfruits, Ibn Rushd informs us: “The difference of opinion lies in the factthat some jurists confine paying of zakah to only those items of consumptionwhich are generally agreed upon, while others go beyond those items and includedried fruits in them too. [The crux of the issue is]: What qualifies the fouredible items [wheat, barley, dates, and dried grapes] for zakah? Are theysubject to zakah because of their being delineated as such or because of theirspecial import to the subsistence of life? Those who subscribe to the firstview restrict payment of zakah to the four edibles, and those who subscribe tothe second view extend the obligation to all land produce except for grass,firewood, and bamboo. There is a consensus on the latter being excluded fromzakah. However, when it comes to the use of analogy based on a generalstatement, both groups rest on shaky ground.”

The saying of the Prophet, which uses the expression allazhi yaqtazhi,reads: “From what the heavens water, a tithe [is due], and from what iswatered by irrigation [nazh] a half a tithe.” The relative pronoun ma isused to mean al-lazhi, which is a general expression. Allah, the Exalted, alsosays: “It is He who has brought into being gardens–both the cultivatedones and those growing wild–and the date palm, and fields bearing multiformproduce, and the olive trees, and the pomegranate: all resembling one anotherand yet so different. Eat of their fruit when it comes to fruition, and giveunto the poor their due on the harvest day …” [al-An’am 141].

Analogically speaking, zakah aims at counteracting poverty and this cannotbe done through zakah on land produce which is edible and sustains life.

Restricting a general statement with this kind of analogical reasoningvitiates zakah on all land produce except ones which sustain life. Those whofollow the general import of the Prophet’s saying add some more to thegenerally acknowledged four items. Excluded of course are the ones on whichthere is consensus.

Again, those who agree upon land produce of a subsistance kind often differover whether it can be considered as being subsistent. Can analogical reasoningbe the basis of what they agree upon or not? An example of such a disagreementis that of Malik and ash-Shaf’i regarding olives. Malik holds that zakah onolives is obligatory, while ash-Shaf’i is against it, according to a latterview expressed in Egypt. The reason for his disagreement is whether olivescould be considered as food vital for life or not.

Volume3, Page 26: Nisab of Plants and Fruits

Most scholars say that there is no zakah on plants or fruits until theyattain the amount of five awsuq. Furthermore, this becomes applicable onlyafter the chaff, straw, and husk are removed. If it is not cleansed of husk,then the amount of zakah would be ten awsuq.

Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said:”There is no sadaqah (zakah) on that which is less than five awsuq.”It is also narrated by Ahmad and al-Baihaqi with a good chain.

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said:”There is no sadaqah on any amount of dates or grains less than fiveawsuq.” A wusuq by consensus of opinion is sixty sa’as (a cubic measure ofvarying magnitude). This hadith is said to be munqati that is–a hadith with aninterrupted chain.

Both Abu Hanifah and Mujahid hold that zakah is due on any amount, little orbig, in accordance with the generic nature of the Prophet’s saying: “Fromwhat the heavens water, a tithe [is due] …” This is because land produceis perishable and cannot be preserved for a whole year. In that case, suchproduce does not attain a nisab within a one-year period.

Ibn al-Qayyim’s discussion of the subject is that the authentic and explicitsunnah for a tithe’s nisab is the hadith: “From what the heavens water, atithe [is due], and from what is watered by irrigation (gharb-vessel) a half atithe.” This is applicable to both small and large quantities as opposedto the specific amount mentioned in other hadith. In its application, a genericstatement is as important as a specific one. Should there be a conflict betweenthe two, then the most comprehensive will be applicable. This is the rule.

It has been said that both of the preceding hadith ought to be followed. Intheir essence, they do not contradict each other, nor does one of them have tocancel the other. The Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, has to be obeyedin this matter, for he said: “From what the heavens water, a tithe [is due]. . .” This saying seeks to distinguish between the two (categories): oneon which a tithe is due, and the other on which only half of the tithe is due.He therefore distinguished between the two categories only in respect to theamount due. There is no mention of any amount of nisab in this hadith. However,he mentioned it explicitly in another hadith which cannot be ignored assomething that is general or is intended to be so and not otherwise. It issimilar to other statements of general import which have been explained in thetexts.

Ibn Qudamah concludes: “The saying of the Prophet, upon whom be peace,that ‘there is no sadaqah [zakah] on anything less than five awsuq’ is agreedupon. This hadith is specific, and for this reason takes precedence and clarifieshis previous statement of general import. This is similar to his saying that’zakah is due on all freely grazing camels,’ which becomes explicit by hisother saying on the same subject: ‘There is no sadaqah on less than fivecamels.’ Likewise his saying: ‘Sadaqah on silver is a fourth of the tithe,’becomes specific by a latter utterance: ‘There is no sadaqah on any amount lessthan five ounces.’ Thus, it is possible to have holdings which qualify forsadaqah per se, but on which it is not levied.”

When it comes to land produce, possession of a property for a year cannot beused as criterion, because their maturity or growth is completed by the time ofharvest, and not by their continuity extended beyond a year. However,possession is considered for goods other than land produce since it isgenerally assumed that by the end of the year they must have completed theirgrowth. The principle of attaining a nisab on any property is based on theunderstanding that a nisab is an amount large enough to be subjected to zakah.This may be explained by recalling that sadaqah is obligatory for the rich,which presupposes the existence of nisab generated by their holdings. Forproduce which cannot be measured but qualifies for zakah, a sa’a is used. Onesa’a is a measure equal to one and one-third cups (gadah). Thus, a nisab isfifty kaylah (kaylah is a dry measure of weight, in Egypt it is equal to 16.72L). As to the produce which cannot be measured, Ibn Quadamah says: “Thenisab of saffron, cotton and such items is to be weighed at 1,600 Iraqi pounds(ratl, an Iraqi ratl equals approximately 130 dirhams). Thus, its weight isestimated.”

Abu Yusuf says that if the produce cannot be measured, then zakah can onlybe levied on it when its value attains the nisab of articles subject to thelowest standard of measurement. Thus, zakah will not be levied on cotton untilits value reaches five awsuq of an article to the lowest value so measured,such as barley and the like. This is because it is impossible to measure thearticle in itself except by the lower price of two nisabs. According toMuhammad ibn al-Hasan: “For zakah, a product has to reach five times thegreatest value of its kind. Thus, zakah is not payable on cotton when itreaches five qintars, because evaluation by means of wusuq is based on theconsideration that its value is higher than what is valued in kind.”

Volume3, Page 28: The Rate of Zakah

The rate of zakah differs according to the method of irrigation. If it iswatered naturally without the use of artificial means, then the zakah payableis a tithe (one-tenth) of the produce. However, if it is irrigated by amechanical device or with purchased water, then the zakah payable is half atithe.

Mu’azh reports that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said: “On thatwhich is watered by the heavens, or by an adjacent water channel, a tithe isdue. As for what is irrigated through a well or a stream, its zakah is half atithe.” This hadith is narrated by alBaihaqi and al-Hakim, and is gradedsahih.

Ibn ‘Umar reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said: “On thatwhich is watered by the heavens or springs or its own roots, a tithe is due,and on that watered by a well or a stream, half a tithe.” This hadith isnarrated by al-Bukhari and others.

In case the land is watered equally by artificial as well as natural means,then zakah payable will be three-fourths of a tithe.

Ibn Qudamah stated that he did not know of any difference of opinion on thepreceding hadith. If one method of watering is used more than the other, thenfor calculating zakah, this would be the determining factor. This is the viewof Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, athThauri, and ash-Shaf’i (one of his two opinions).

All of the costs involved in harvesting, transportation, threshing,cleaning, storing, and others are to be borne by the owner from his propertyand should not be accounted for against the zakah to be paid.

Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn ‘Umar hold that whatever is borrowed for the purpose oftilling, planting, and harvesting should first be taken out.

This is evident from their following statements reported by Jabir ibn Zaidthat Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn ‘Umar said that a man who borrows in order to spend iteither on cultivation (of his land) or on his family must first pay off hisdebt, then pay zakah on the rest. Ibn ‘Abbas said: “First he must pay offwhat he spent on cultivation, and then pay zakah on the rest.” Yahya ibnAdam related this in al-Kharaj.

Ibn Hazm relates from ‘Ata that all expenses are to be deducted first. Ifzakah is applicable to the remaining amount, only then will it be paid.

Volume3, Page 29: Zakah on Kharajiyyah Land

Land subject to tax is divided into two categores:

-1- ‘ushriyyah land (tithe land): land owned by people who accepted Islamwillingly or who were conquered by force and had their land divided among theconquerors, or land revived and cultivated by Muslims; and

-2- kharajiyyah land (taxable land), land conquered by force and left to itsoriginal owners on the condition that they pay the required land tax.

Just as zakah is payable on ‘ushriyyah, so it is paid on kharajiyyah whenthe inhabitants of the latter accept Islam or when a Muslim buys it. In thatcase, both the tithe and the kharaj become due, and neither of them will negatethe application of the other.

Ibn al-Munzhir witnesses: “This is the view of most of the scholars,including ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdulaziz, Rabi’ah, az-Zuhri, Yahya al-Ansari, Malik,al-Awzai, ath-Thauri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Ibn Abu Layla, al-Layth, Ibnal-Mubarak, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu ‘Ubaid, and Dawud.” Their opinion is derivedfrom the Qur’an, the sunnah, and the exercise of their intellect–that is, bymeans of analogical reasoning or qiyas.

The Qur’anic verse referred to is: “O you who believe! Spend of thegood things which you have earned and of that which We produce from the earthfor you” [al-Baqarah 267]. Sharing the produce of ones land with the pooris obligatory, whether the land is kharajiyyah or ‘ushriyyah. The sunnahreferred to is: “From what the heavens water, a tithe [is due].” Thishadith encompasses in its general meaning both the kharaj and the ‘ushriyyahland.

As to the analogical reasoning (qiyas), both zakah and kharaj are a kind ofobligations (hagq), each based on a different reason, and one does not nullifythe other. It is similar to the case when a person who is in the state of ihramkills privately owned game (for eating). Since the tithe is payable by theforce of the text, it cannot be negated by kharaj, which becomes payable by theforce of ijtihad. Abu Hanifah holds that there is no tithe on kharaj land.Kharaj, he says, is due only when the land is conquered, (whereas) one of theconditions governing the obligatory nature of the tithe is that the land shouldnot be kharajiyyah.: The Validity of Abu Hanifah’s View

Imam Abu Hanifah provides the following evidence for his view: According toIbn Mas’ud, the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said: “Neither kharaj nortithe [‘ushr] are payable simultaneously on the land of a Muslim.”

The preceding hadith is by consensus held to be weak (da’if). Yahya ibn’Anbasah reported it on the authority of Abu Hanifah from Hammad from Ibrahiman-Nakha’i from ‘Alqamah, from Ibn Mas’ud from the Prophet, upon whom be peace.

Al-Baihaqi probes its chain and says in al-Ma’rifah as-Sunan wa al-Athar:”The preceding hadith is narrated by Abu Hanifah from Hammad from Ibrahimon his own authority. Thus, Yahya reported in suspended (marfu’) form.”Yahya ibn ‘Anbasah is well-known for interpolating unauthentic sayings andattributing them to established authorities. This was related by Abu Ahmad ibn’Adiyy al-Hafiz as we were informed by Abu Sa’id al-Malini about him.”

Likewise, al-Kamal Ibn al-Humam, a leading Hanafiyyah, considers the hadithweak.

Ahmad, Muslirn, and Abu Dawud relate from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet,upon whom be peace, said: “Iraq would refrain from paying its qafiz’ anddirham, Syria its mudd and dinar, and Egypt its ardab and dinar. Thus, youwould come back from where you had started.” He said this three times. AbuHurairah heard this in person.

This hadith does not provide evidence to the effect that zakah should not betaken from kharaj land. The scholars interpret it to mean that the conversionof these countries to Islam would eliminate land tax. It may also have alludedto dissensions which could prevail at the end of time and which would lead toneglecting or fulfilling the obligation of zakah, jizyah and other such dues bythem.

An-Nawawi says: “If this hadith means what they [the Hanafiyyah] claim,then it means that zakah could not be enjoined on dirhams, dinars, andmerchandise. If this is so, then nobody subscribes to it.”

It was reported that when the dahqan (grandee) of Bahr al-Mulk embracedIslam, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said: “Give him the land and collect the landtax from him.” This is a clear statement on the matter of taking kharajwithout demanding payment of the tithe.

This incident indicates that kharaj is not cancelled for any person after heembraces Islam, nor does it lead to the cancellation of tithe. He mentionedkharaj here as a way of stating that it will not be cancelled by embracing Islam,like jizyah. As for the tithe, it is well known that it is binding on a freeMuslim, so there is no need to mention it. He also did not mention the levy ofzakah on cattle. This holds for the payment of zakah on silver and gold andother valuables. Perhaps the dahqan (grandee) did not possess anything whichrequired the levy of a tithe on it.

It is said that the practice of the rulers and imams was not to combine the’ushr and kharaj. Ibn al-Munzhir disapproves of such a practice because ‘Umaribn ‘Abdulaziz did combine the two.

It is also said that kharaj is the opposite of ‘ushr. This means that kharajis a consequence of conquest, whereas ‘ushr is an act of worship. Therefore,the two cannot be combined (at one time) and obtained simultaneously from thesame person. This held true in the beginning (when lands were conquered), butit is not tenable in the long run. Nevertheless, not all forms of kharaj arebased on force and conquest since some of its forms are instituted withoutforce as, for example, in the case of lands adjoining a kharaj land or in thecase of acquired and revived land watered with streams.

It is also said that the reason behind the imposition of kharaj and ‘ushr isone–that is, an actually or potentially yielding land. This can be explainedby recalling that if it is marsh land of no benefit (sabkhah), there is nokharaj or ‘ushr on it. That is, one cause cannot demand two dues of the samekind. This is similar to the case of an individual who for a year possessesfree-grazing camels (sa’imah) intended for sale, for such a person is notrequired to pay two kinds of zakah–that is, one for possession and one fortrade.

This is not the case because the ‘ushr (tithe) is payable on the land’sproduce and the kharaj on the land itself, regardless of whether it is plantedor not. As to the admissibility of the unity of cause, alKamal ibn al-Humamexplains there is nothing to prevent two obligations from being connected toone cause, such as land.

Most scholars are of the opinion that anyone who rents a piece of land andcultivates it must pay the zakah, not the true owner of that land. To this AbuHanifah replies: “Zakah is due on the land owner.” Ibn Rushd holds:”Their difference lies in whether the ‘ushr is payable on the land itselfor its produce.” Obviously, zakah, as their views suggest, is payable oneither of them. The difference is only of priority, considering that both theproduce and the land belong to the same owner. Most scholars say that zakah isdue on seeds (habb). Abu Hanifah holds that the essence of obligation restswith the land. Ibn Qudamah inclines toward the majority’s view and says:”The obligation lies on the produce and is payable by its owner, as in thecase of zakah on the value [of a property] intended for trade. Also, it issimilar to the tithe payable on the produce of the land owned.” Their (theHanafiyyah) view is not authentic, for if zakah were to be levied on the valueof the land, then it would have been obligatory even if the land was not cultivated,as is the case with the land tax, and even nonMuslirns would not be excludedfrom its application. Be that the case, kharaj would have to be estimated onthe land itself, not on the value of produce–that is, it would be consideredpart of the expenditure of fay’, not the expenditure of zakah.

Volume3, Page 32: The Estimation of Nisab on Palm Trees and Grapevines Through Khars,Not by Measure (Kayl)

As soon as palm trees and grapevines ripen and their produce is ready to bepicked, an estimation of their nisab is made without their actual weighing. Theprocess is carried out by a knowledgeable and trustworthy person who estimatesthe amount of fresh grapes and dates still on the trees for zakah as if theywere dry dates and raisins. The arnount of zakah is, however, payable when thefruit becomes dry.

Abu Humayd as-Sa’idi related: “We went on the expedition of Tabuk withthe Prophet, upon whom be peace. When we arrived at Wadi al-Qura, we saw awoman in her orchard. The Prophet said: ‘Let us estimate [her zakah].’ Then theMessenger, upon whom be peace, estimated ten awsuq and told her: ‘[The amountof zakah] has been calculated on your [orchard’s] produce.’ ” This isnarrated by alBukhari.

This is the practice of the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, and hiscompanions and the scholars observed it.

The Hanafiyyah have different views because they consider conjecture to beuncertain, and therefore, of no use in determining the amount owed. Still, thetradition of the Messenger of Allah is a better guide (‘azha) becauseconjecture is not guessing; it is a diligent attempt to estimate the amount ofthe produce. It is the same as estimating the amount of the produce lost(because of its being rotten or moth-ridden). The basis for conjecture rests onthe custom that people eat fresh fruits, and as such, there is no need forcalculating the amount of zakah before it is eaten or plucked. In this way, theowners are allowed to do what they want and, at the same time, to determine theamount of zakah. The appraiser should ignore a third or a fourth of the produceas a reprieve for the property owners since they, their guests, and theirneighbors need to eat some of it. Also, the produce is exposed to such perilsas birds feeding, passers-by plucking, and wind blowing. Any appraisal of theamount of zakah on all of the produce without excluding a third or a fourth ofit (for the preceding reasons) would have militated against the genuineinterests of the owners.

Sahl ibn Abu Hathamah related that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said:”Whenever you conjecture, estimate the [zakah] and ignore one-third. Ifyou do not, then leave [at least] one-fourth.” This is narrated by Ahmadand the authors of Sunan, except for Ibn Majah. It was also reported byal-Hakim and Ibn Hibban, and they both authenticated it. Commenting on thestatus of the report, atTirmizhi says: “The hadith reported by Sahl is theone enacted or followed by most scholars.” Bashir ibn Yassar said:”When ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab appointed Abu Hathamah al-Ansari to estimatethe property of Muslims, he told him: ‘Whenever you see that the people haveleft some dates unplucked for autumn, leave them for the people to eat, and donot estimate the zakah on them.’ ”

Makhul said: “Whenever the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace,assigned someone to estimate, he would say: ‘Be easy on the people, for some oftheir property [trees] could be barren, some low, and some for [their] eating.'” It was narrated by Abu ‘Ubaid, who added: “The low palm tree iscalled as-sabilah and allows its fruit to be plucked by passers-by. The eatingtree (al-akilah) is a palm tree especially designated as an eating tree for theowner’s family or for whoever is attached to them.”

Volume3, Page 34: Eating of the Grains

It is permissible for the owner to eat from the grain, and whatever heconsumes will not be included in the quantity subject to zakah, for this is along-standing custom. In any case, only a small amount is actually eaten. It isthe same as an owner of a fruitbearing tree eating some of its produce.Therefore, the zakah will be estimated on the actual amount after he harveststhe crop and husks the seeds. Ahmad was asked about the eating of farik (rubbedgreen wheat) by the owner, and he answered that there is no harm if the ownereats what he needs. This is also the opinion of ash-Shaf’i, al-Layth and IbnHazm. However, Malik and Abu Hanifah hold that the owner will have to accountfor what he eats.

Volume3, Page 34a: Combining Grains and Fruit

Scholars agree that various kinds of fruit can be combined even if theirquality is different–that is, excellent or bad in quality. Different kinds ofraisins may also be combined together, and so can the various kinds of wheatand cereals.

They also agree that merchandise and its cash value received can becombined. Ash-Shaf’i allows combining goods and cash only when purchasedbecause the nisab is calculated upon that. Scholars also do not allow thecombination of certain categories with others in order to attain a nisab, withthe exception of grains and fruits. That is why one category of animals cannotbe combined with another. For example, camels cannot be added to cattle tocomplete a nisab, nor can fruit be combined with raisins.

Scholars have different points of view in regard to combining various typesof grains with one another. The best and the most correct opinion is that notwo things can be combined to calculate a nisab. The nisab must be consideredon every category by itself. This is because there are various categories andmany kinds. Therefore, barley cannot be added to wheat, nor can the latter beadded to the former, which is also true of dates and raisins, and chickpeas andlentils. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, ash-Shaf’i, and Ahmad, according toone of the reports. Most of the early scholars hold this opinion.

Ibn al-Munzhir says that most scholars concur that camels cannot be combinedwith cattle or sheep, or cattle with sheep, nor dates with raisins. Thus, therecan be no combining of different kinds of produce or animals. Those who allowsuch a practice do it without any authentic proof.

Volume3, Page 35: When Zakah is Due on Plants and Fruits

Zakah is due on plants when the grains mature and are ready to be rubbed offand on the fruit when it is ripened. In the case of dates, for example, theindication will be their brightness or red color, and with grapes theirsweetness. Zakah becomes due only after grains are husked or the fruit becomesdried. If the farmer sold his grain after it had matured, and the fruit afterit had ripened, then its zakah will be paid by him and not the buyer. This isbecause the obligation to pay zakah became due when the produce was still inthe owner’s possession.

Volume3, Page 35a: Payment of Good (Things) for Zakah

Allah, the Exalted One, commanded those paying zakah to set it aside fromthe good portion of their property and forbade paying it from the bad portion.He says: “O you who believe! Spend of the good things you have earned andfrom that which We bring forth from the earth for you, and seek not the bad[with intent] to spend thereof [in charity] when you would not take it foryourselves save with disdain. And know that Allah is free of all wants andworthy of all praise” [alBaqarah 267].

Abu Dawud, an-Nasa’i and others reported from Sahl ibn Hanif from his fatherthat: “The Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, forbade paying zakahwith two kinds of dates called ju’rur and habiq. People used to set aside theworst of their fruit for sadaqah but were later on forbidden to do this byAllah: ‘And seek not the bad [with intent] to spend thereof [in charity]'[al-Baqarah 267].”

While mentioning this verse, al-Bara’ said: “This was revealed inrelation to us [al-Ansar–the Helpers], because we were owners of palm trees. Aman may bring from his palm trees [dates] depending on how much he had, acluster or two, and hang it at the mosque, and the people of the Saffah who hadno food would come to the cluster and beat it with their rod. The green andunripe dates would fall off and they would eat them. There were people who didnot seek good. Someone would bring a cluster of bad or inferior quality dates[shis and hashaf] or an already-broken cluster [before it had ripened] and hangit at the mosque. At this time, Allah revealed the ‘ayah: ‘And seek not the bad[with intent] to spend thereof [in charity] when you would not take it foryourselves save with disdain’ [al-Baqarah 267].” Al-Bara’ continued:”If one of you receives as a gift something similar to what he gives away,he would not accept it except out of feigned pleasure.” Said al-Bara’:”As a result of that, each one of us used to offer the good part of whathe had.” It was narrated by at-Tirmizhi who said: “It is good andsound.”

In his summation of the subject, ash-Shaukani says: “This [thepreceding hadith] means that the owner is not allowed to set aside the bad fromthe good on which zakah is due, especially in regard to dates as well as, byanalogy, the various other categories on which zakah is due. Furthermore, thecollector of zakah is not allowed to take it.

Volume3, Page 36: Zakah on Honey

Most scholars say that there is no zakah on honey. AlBukhari, for one,states: “There is no authentic tradition concerning zakah on honey.”Ash-Shaf’i explains: “In my view, no zakah is levied on it because thereis no evidence in the traditions (sunan and ‘athar) for doing so. Thus, it wasexempted.” Ibn al-Munzhir affirms: “There is no tradition (khabar)which states that zakah must be paid on honey, nor is there a consensus.Therefore, there is no zakah on honey. This is the opinion of mostscholars.”

The Hanafiyyah and Ahmad are of the opinion that honey is subject to zakah,even though there is no evidence for this view in any tradition, except forsome traditions (‘athar) which support each other. Their reason is that sinceit is produced from blossoms, trees, and flowers and weighed and stored likeother types of produce, zakah is due on it. They also say it is subject tozakah because the cost of producing it is less than the cost of growing fruitsand plants. Abu Hanifah made it a condition that when zakah is due on honey, itshould only be collected on honey produced on tithe land. However, he did notstipulate any nisab for it. If this is so, then reason dictates that it shouldbe a tithe due on any amount. Imam Ahmad, on the contrary, stipulated that itshould attain a nisab equal to ten ‘afraq. One faraq equals sixteen Iraqipounds. It makes no difference whether it is produced on kharaj or ‘ushr land.Abu Yusuf contends: “Its nisab is ten pounds but Muhammad maintains:”It is five ‘afraq.” One faraq equals thirty-six pounds.