Once
zakah becomes payable on the holdings either because of the completion of a
year or harvest time, and the holdings or part of them are lost, the owner
still has to pay it. Whether the loss occured owing to negligence or not does
not matter.
This
is the opinion of Ibn Hazm and the better opinion of the Hanbaliyyah. Abu
Hanifah holds that it vitiates the payment of zakah if all the property
perishes without the owner’s role in its destruction. When part of it perishes,
the perished portion is not subject to zakah. This is in accordance with the
rule that zakah is associated with the property itself. However, when the property
is deliberately destroyed by the owner, zakah has to be paid. Ash-Shaf’i,
al-Hassan ibn Salih, Ishaq, Abu Thaur, and Ibn al-Munzhir hold that if the
nisab perishes before zakah is paid, then the owner owes nothing. However, if
it perishes subsequent to the accumulation of the nisab, the owner has to pay
it. Ibn Qudamah supports this view and says it vitiates the payment of zakah if
the property perishes without any negligence on the part of the owner. This is
because it is obligatory for the sake of beneficence, which presupposes the
existence of the property--and not with the purpose of impoverishing the payers
of zakah.
Negligence
in this context implies that the owner had accumulated the nisab and thus it
was possible for him to pay zakah, but he did not and the property perished. On
the contrary, if he did not have the nisab, or the holdings were not in his
possession, or they were to be purchased and he could not, then this does not
constitute an act of negligence.
Likewise,
if it is presumed that the obligation to pay zakah remains even after the
holdings are lost, and the owner has the means to pay it, then he must do so.
Otherwise, he should be granted a respite in order to fulfill his obligation to
pay zakah. This is akin to a debt one owes to someone but the debt owed to
Allah should be considered more important.
The
Loss of Zakah After it is Set Aside
When
a person sets aside zakah for distribution among the poor and all of it or some
of it is lost, he must repay it because it is still his responsibility.
Ibn
Hazm says: “We received a narration from Ibn Abi Shaibah on the authority of
Hafs ibn Ghayath, Jarir, al-Mu’tamir ibn Sulaiman at-Taymi, Zaid ibn al-Hubab,
and ‘Abdulwahhab ibn ‘Ata; also from Hafs, who narrated on the authority of Hisham
ibn Hassan from al-Hassan al-Basri; Jarir who reported, on the authority of
al-Mughirah from his companions; and al-Mu’tamir who reported from Mu’amar from
Hammad; and Zaid who reported from Shu’bah from al-Hakam; and ‘Abdulwahhab who
reported on the authority of Ibn Abi ‘Urubah from Hammad from Ibrahim
an-Nakha’i that whoever sets aside zakah from his property and then it is lost,
his obligation to pay zakah still remains to be discharged, and he must set it
aside again.”
There
exists, however, another opinion on it: “We received a narration on the
authority of ‘Ata’ that the obligation will be discharged [if set aside and
lost],” says Ibn Hazm.
Delaying
of Zakah (Payment) Does Not Void it
Ash-Shaf’i
holds that anyone who does not pay zakah for a number of years must pay it all
together. Whether or not he is aware of its obligation or he happens to be in a
Muslim or non-Muslim land, makes no difference. Based on the opinion of Malik,
ash-Shaf’i and Abu Thaur, Ibn al-Munzhir says: “When unjust people rule a
country and the people of that country do not pay their zakah for a number of
years, then their new leader should take it from them.”
The
Payment of the Value Instead of Paying the Item Itself
It
is not permissible to pay the value instead of the item itself, except in the
case of non-existence, for zakah is an act of worship which can only be
fulfilled according to the specified manner, with the rich sharing their wealth
with the poor Mu’azh reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, sent him to
Yemen and told him: “Take grain from grain, sheep from sheep, camels from
camels, and cows from cows.” This hadith is narrated by Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah,
al-Baihaqi, and al-Hakim. It should be noted that there is an interruption in
the chain of this hadith, since ‘Ata’ did not hear it from Mu’azh.
Disapproving
of substitution, ash-Shaukani says: “The truth of the matter is that zakah is
obligatory on the item itself and should not be substituted for its value
except where there is a valid excuse.”
Abu
Hanifah permits the acceptance of the value whether the individual owing could
pay it in the items itself or not because zakah is the right of the poor, and
he believed that it made no difference whether it was paid in the item or in
something else of equal value. Al-Bukhari reports, with a firm statement, that
Mu’azh asked the people of Yemen to give him either goods or clothes of silk or
garments as zakah instead of barley and corn because it was more convenient for
them. The companions of the Prophet, (SAW), were also given the choice in
Madinah.
Zakah
on Shared Property
When
holdings are shared between two or more partners, zakah is not obligatory on
either one until all of them attain a nisab individually. This is the opinion
of most scholars. This does not include the combination of animals, which has
been discussed earlier.
Evading
the Payment of Zakah
The
opinion of Malik, al-Auza’i, Ishaq, Ahmad, and Abu ‘Ubaid is that whoever
possesses a nisab of any kind of property and then sells it before the
completion of the year hawl, or gives it away as a gift, or damages part of it
with the intention of avoiding its zakah, he still must pay its zakah. If he
engages himself in any of the preceding acts at a time when his obligation to
pay zakah is about to mature, he will be forced to pay it. If, however, any of
the preceding acts happen at the beginning of the hawl, this will not
constitute an evasion, and he will be (legally) free from his obligation to pay
zakah.
Abu
Hanifah and ash-Shaf’i hold that since the amount decreased before the end of
the hawl, zakah will not be paid on it. He would still be considered a
wrongdoer and disobedient to Allah for attempting to escape it. The early
Muslims based their rationale on the ‘ayahs in which Allah, the Exalted One,
says: “Lo! We have tried them as We tried the owners of the garden when they
vowed they would pluck its fruit the next morning, and made no reservation [for
the will of Allah]. Then a visitation from your Lord came upon it while they
were asleep. So the garden became a dark and desolate spot in the morning, as
if it were plucked” [al-Mulk 17-20]. Allah punished those people for avoiding
their obligation to the poor.
Zakah,
as such, will still be due and the person has to pay it because his intention
was to deprive the poor of their share in his wealth. This would be similar to
the case of a man who divorces his wife during his terminal illness. His evil
intention calls for punishment as a redemptive act. Another case of a similar
nature would be that of a person who kills his benefactor so that he could have
his inheritance. In that case, Allah punishes him by depriving him of his
inheritance.
To
be continued
