Problem # 1 The criterion for the application of Zakat is the time when the grains become dry, though the time when the payment of Zakat becomes obligatory may be earlier. So if a person has five Wasaq of fresh dates but it falls short of Nisab when dried up, no Zakãt shall be payable for it. Even in case of “Barban” which is a variety of dates, and the like, which are eaten when still fresh, Zakät becomes obligatory when they reach the Nisãb of dates, even if the dates are less than the fresh dates. In case when these varieties, when dried up, are not treated as dates, there shall be no Zakät on them

Problem # 2 If a person owns palm trees, vines or grain fields in different distant places whose fruits or grains become ripe earlier than one another, even if with the distance of one or two months or more, they shall be put together, provided that the whole produce belongs to one year, so that if the produce reaches Nisab, Zakãt shall be obligatory on it, and the obligatory Zakãt shall be taken out from the produce. If the produce does not amount to the limit, it shall be obligatory to pay Zakãt whenever it reaches the limit, whether it is a small amount or a large amount. If the amount of produce that has ripened does not reach the Nisãb, he shall wait for the other produce when ripened till it reaches the limit. If he has some palm trees or vines that bear fruits twice a year, he shall put the first crop together with the second one, though there is difficulty in accepting this opinion.

Second - Ownership by farming, even if what is cultivated, or farm or fruits with or without trees are transferred into his ownership before Zakat is applicable to them, yet, according to the stronger opinion, Zakàt shall be obligatory on him on what has been produced during the period they had been in his ownership despite the above fact, and according to the more cautious opinion, even what was produced before they were transferred to his ownership.

Problem # 3 According to what has been prevalent among the later jurists, the time when Zakat becomes applicable is when the grains become ripe, or the beginning of suitability of production, or when the fruits on the palm trees become yellow or red in case of dates and when the unripe and sour grapes form into bunches. According to the stronger opinion, the criterion is the time when they may be called wheat, barley or dates. The caution obtained after consideration of the two opinions mentioned in the above Problem should not be given up in case of raisins (or currants).

Problem # 4 The time when taking out of Zakãt becomes obligatory is when the grain has been duly sifted from the husk, the dates are picked and when the raisins (or currants) are ready. This is the when payment of Zakät is delayed by a person, he shall be responsible (for any damage caused to the subject of Zakãt). The collector of Zakãt may demand it from the owner and the owner is bound to make a positive response. If the collector of Zakat demands Zakãt from the owner before the above time, the latter shall not be bound to make a positive response. There is difficulty in the permissibility of payment of Zakãt before the above time. Rather, according to the stronger opinion, it is not permissible if the subject of Zakãt is damaged due to its payment before time, even if we accept the opinion that the proper time when the payment of Zakãt becomes obligatory is from the time the subject of Zakãt becomes suitable for production.

Problem # 5 If the owner intends to pick the grapes when they are unripe or ripe, or the dates when it is unripe or ripe, he shall be legally allowed to do so, and he shall be bound to pay Zakat, according to the more cautious opinion, from the produce itself or its value after determination of the time when the dates or the raisins have reached the Nisäb, though, according to the stronger opinion, it is not obligatory.

Problem # 6 It is permissible for the owner to pay Zakãt while the fruit is still on the trees, in the form of the fruit or its value, before he has picked the fruit, but after it payment has become obligatory on it.

Problem # 7 If a person owns a palm tree, vine or a corn-field before the time when payment of Zakãt becomes obligatory on it, then, according to the stronger opinion, he shall be bound to pay Zakãt on whatever grows in his property after he becomes its owner, and in other case too, according to the more cautious opinion, he shall be bound to pay Zakãt, as already mentioned. So it shall be obligatory on him to take out Zakät after it becomes applicable provided that all the relevant conditions are there. This is contrary to the case when he becomes the owner of the property after Zakãt had become applicable to it, so that the person from whom the property has been transferred to the new owner and who had been the owner of the property before Zakãt became applicable to it. If a person has purchased the property before its owner had paid the Zakãt due on it, then the transaction shall be considered legally unauthorized in so far as it regards the portion of the Zakat, and shall require the permission of the judge. So if the judge allows it, the buyer shall pay Zakãt to the judge, and the latter shall be entitled to have recourse against the seller. In case the judge does not permit, the buyer shall pay its Zakãt and have recourse against the seller. This is the case when it is established that the seller has not paid the Zakãt. In case, however, he has knowledge about its payment by the seller or there is its likelihood, then he shall be under no liability.

Problem # 8 If a person disposes of his agricultural produce or fruits, and doubts whether the sale had taken place after became obligatory on it in which case he would be liable to pay the Zakãt, or before it in which case Zakãt would be the liability of the buyer, and he would have no liability for it, except that he knows the time Zakat became obligatory, but has forgotten the time of the sale; in that case, according to the stronger opinion, he shall, nevertheless, be bound to pay the Zakãt. In case the buyer has such doubt, then if he is certain that the seller has not paid his Zakãt, with the supposition that the sale has taken place after Zakãt had become obligatory on the property, then, according to the more cautious opinion, he shall be bound to pay the Zakãt in all circumstances, while there is likelihood that the sale has taken place at the time when the growth of the crop had been complete and it has not grown further since it became his property. In case there is no such likelihood, then, according to the stronger opinion, he shall be bound to pay the Zakãt. In case the buyer is not certain about it, but is certain about the payment of the Zakãt by the seller with the supposition that he might have paid it before the sale, or there is such likelihood, he shall not be liable to pay the Zakat absolutely, according to the stronger opinion, even in case he has knowledge about the time of the sale, but doubts whether Zakãt became obligatory before or if it, though it would be more cautious for him to pay Zakat.

Problem # 9 If the owner dies after Zakãt became obligatory on the property, but before its payment, the Zakãt shall be taken out of the property itself on which Zakat is due in case it subsists. In case, however, the property has been destroyed (before Zakãt is paid), the deceased shall be held responsible for it, and the Zakat shall be paid out of the property left behind him. Of course, his heirs may pay the value of the Zakãt even despite the subsistence of the property. If the owner dies before Zakãt has become obligatory on the property, then, according to the more cautious opinion, each of the heirs whose share has reached the Nisãb of the Zakàt, shall be bound to pay the Zakãt provided that all the relevant conditions are there, in case the property has been transferred to them after the completion of growth of its produce and before Zakãt has become obligatory on the property. According to the stronger opinion, the heirs shall be bound to pay the Zakãt even if the transfer of the property has taken place before the completion of the produce. In case none of the heirs’ share has reached the Nisab or some of the relevant conditions are not fulfilled, there shall be no liability for Zakãt. If it is not known whether the owner’s death has taken place before Zakãt became obligatory or after it, then, according to the stronger opinion, the heir or heirs whose share has reached the Nisãb shall be bound to pay Zakãt on his share in certain circumstances, and, according to the more cautious opinion, in certain ( circumstances. As regards the heirs whose respective shares have not reached the Nisäb, they shall not be liable to pay any Zakät for their respective shares, except in case the time when Zakat became obligatory on the property is known, but there is doubt as to the time of the owner’s death then, according to the stronger opinion, they shall be liable to pay the Zakãt on their respective shares.

Problem # 10 If the owner of the corn-field, palm tree or vine is dead, and he owed some debt, then if his death has taken place after the payment of Zakät became obligatory on his property, it shall be obligatory to pay the Zakãt, as already mentioned, even in case the debt embraces the whole amount of the property left behind him, and the creditors shall not share it along with those entitled to receive the Zakat, except when the deceased had become liable for it during his lifetime due to destruction of the property on which Zakãt was due, or it had been destroyed due to his own fault, in which case the property shall be distributed among them like all other debts. If the owner’s death has taken place before Zakãt became obligatory on the property, then, if it were before the appearance of the grains and fruits, then, if the debt would embrace the whole property left behind him and even exceed it in a way that it would also embrace even what has grown in addition on the property, the heirs shall not be bound to pay Zakät. Rather, according to the stronger opinion, the additional growth on the property shall be treated as the principal inheritance being the property of the deceased owner from which the debt shall be repaid. In case the debt embraces the whole property left behind by the deceased and there is nothing left in excess, if the fruits have appeared after the owner’s death, the amount of debt after the appearance of the fruits shall become a part of the principal inheritance as well as the growth thereon being the property of the deceased owner which will be divided between the creditors and the heirs, and there shall be no Zakât on the amount equal to the debt, and the Nisäb shall be assessed on the principal property and the growth thereon after the payment of the debt. Later, if the share of the heir or heirs out of the growth of the property after its division happens to be in a considerable amount and reaches the limit of Nisäb, Zakãt shall be obligatory on it. If a part of the inheritance is destroyed and it transpires that it was not from what the debt is paid and that it was not a property of the deceased, and, in fact, his property happened to be other than what was destroyed, and from it, the actual position becomes clear when the death had taken place after the appearance of the growth and before Zakat became obligatory. Of course, it would be cautious to take out the Zakãt along with the compensation paid to the creditors or obtaining their satisfaction. Particularly in case the owner’s death took place before the appearance of the growth, and if the heirs have repaid .the debts or have stood guarantee to their payment with the consent of the creditors before Zakãt has become obligatory, Zakãt shall be obligatory on every one whose share reaches the Nisãb provided that all the relevant conditions are there.

Problem # 11 In case of a valid Muzãra’ah (or Metayage; a share cropping contract in agriculture) and Musaqat (or a sharecropping contract in orchard produce) where the produce is to be shared by the owner and his agent, payment of Zakãt shall be obligatory on both of them for their respective shares provided that all the relevant conditions are there in respect of the said contracts, contrary to the land leased for farming, in which case the payment of Zakãt is obligatory only on the leaseholder, provided that all the relevant conditions are there, and the lessor is under no liability, even if the hire is paid out of the money on which Zakãt is due.

Problem # 12 In case of an invalid Metayage, the Zakãt shall be payable by the owner of the seed, and the hire of the land and the wages of the labor shall be treated as expenditures. In case of an invalid Musaqat, however, Zakãt shall be payable by the owner of the orchard, and the proper wages of the watering labor shall be treated as expenditure.

Problem # 13 If a person has a variety of dates like the Zãhidi, Khastavi or Qintar, etc., they shall be put together while determining the Nisab, though, it is more cautious to pay the Zakat from the share of each variety. According to the stronger opinion, it would be permissible to pay the Zakãt for all the varieties generally from the variety of superior quality, even if some better quality is also there. According to the more cautious opinion, it is not permissible to pay Zakãt from the variety of a lower quality for the variety of a superior quality. The same rule shall apply to the different varieties of grapes.

Problem # 14 It is permissible for each of the owners or the government or their representative to accept the share of the other party according to the estimate of experts. Apparently the estimate in this case is like the estimate in case of Muzãraah on which subject traditions have come down. This is also a transaction itself based on reason, and its advantage is that the definitely determined joint property becomes definite, and in a general way it is determined in the property of the person accepting it. It is, however, an indispensable condition for its validity that it should take place between the owner and the ruling authority. By ruling authority is meant the government or its representative assigned the job of making the estimate. An owner is not permitted to behave arbitrarily in making an estimate and later make changes according to his sweet will. Of course, once the estimate has been accepted by the government, the owner is allowed to make whatever changes he likes without any need for further checking and accounts. In case of making estimate, it is a condition that its formal declaration (Sighah) should be made which may signify the said acceptance and the transaction. Apparently, (after the transaction), if the subject of the transaction is destroyed by an Act of God or the oppression of an oppressor, its liability shall be on the person accepting it, except when the damage embraces the whole property, or it is to the extent that what is left undamaged falls short of the amount ascertained (as Zakãt), then it shall not be treated as compensation for what has been destroyed. If the accepting party is the owner and not the ruler, he shall be bound to return what is left undamaged to the ruler. Then, if something is left with the accepting owner out of what had been estimated, it shall belong to him. If, however, it falls short, the owner shall be liable to make good the deficit. The time for making the estimate is after the payment of Zakãt has become obligatory.

Zakät becomes obligatory after the payment of what the government receives from the produce itself as its revenue and what it also receives in cash as tax, according to the more valid opinion, when the revenue is determined according to the land for which Zakãt is charged. If the revenue is determined according to the produce that is of a more general nature, it shall be ascertained accordingly. If the government officials, assigned the job of collecting the revenue, collect unjustly more than fixed by the government, then if they have forcibly collected it from the grain itself, then the amount so unjustly collected shall apply to the whole property and the owner shall not be responsible to pay the share of the poor (entitled to receive the Zakat), and it shall be treated as government tax as Zakãt is determined after the deduction of the government tax proportionately. lf the government officials have collected it from something else, then, according to the more cautious opinion, it shall not be accounted for against the poor, particularly when the injustice happens to be personal. Rather, its absence of permissibility is not free from force. Whatever is levied by the government as tax is done, keeping in view the amount of Zakãt (paid by the owner), so that it shall be paid from the average, and then the required Ushr (the tenth part) or half of the ‘Ushr paid out of the remainder. As regards its payment in consideration of the Nisab if it happens to be what is charged on the land as land revenue, then there is no objection if the Nisãb is determined after its payment, in the sense that the owner’s reaching the limit of Nisab in his share shall be the consideration and not the whole share of the owner and the government. If the tax is not in the form of land revenue, then it would be difficult to accept the above rule, and according to the stronger, if not more cautious opinion, the Nisãb shall be considered before the payment of the tax.

Problem # 1 Apparently the rule relating to the tax is not exclusively meant to what the non-Shi’ah ruler receives and who claims to be the caliph and holder of authority on the Muslims without having such title, but also applies generally to the Shi’ah rulers who have no such claim. Rather it also applies to all those officials who are assigned the job of collecting the tax and even to the cases where there is no ruler, as is the case with some of the governments formed these days. There is also a sense in applying this rule to lands other than the taxable lands which is not devoid of force, as, for example, what is Collected by a tyrant and unjust ruler from settlement lands or the wastelands which have come to be owned as a result of developing them.

Problem # 2 According to the stronger opinion, payment of all the expenditures is to be considered without any difference in their belonging to the period before the payment of Zakãt became applicable or after it. It is more cautious, if not according to the stronger opinion, that consideration is to be made of the Nisãb before deducting the expenditures. So if, after the fulfillment of all conditions, the property reaches the Nisab it shall be charged Zakãt. Of course, the expenditures shall be deducted from the whole property, and then the ‘Ushr or its half shall be deducted from the residue, irrespective of its being large or small. In case, however, the expenditures embrace the whole produce, then there shall be no Zakãt. The expenditures here mean everything that is borne by the owner for the maintenance of the produce, and is spent by him for its growth, protection and collection, like the seed, cost of water obtained for irrigating the farm, or watering the trees as well as the wages of the ploughmen, cultivators, guards, irrigators, harvesters and threshers, including the remuneration paid to the agents who hire the fields for cultivation, and also the payment for hiring the land, even if it were usurped, and the person may not intend to pay it to the actual landlord. They also include the cost of drying the fruits (of dates and grapes), trimming the trees and levelling the land and repairing the canals, rather even the cost of digging the canals, if they are required for the farms, palm trees or vines. Apparently the expenditures shall not include what is spent by the owner on the garden, for example, on digging wells or canals, or getting water wheels or Persian wheels, or building the enclosing walls, or the like that are considered expenditures on maintenance and arrangement of the garden and not one on its fruits or crops. Of course, if a buyer of the fruits or the like makes such expenditure for the sake of the fruits he has purchased, or owns them by hiring the orchard; it shall be accounted for as expenditures. If the owner spends labor on his farm or orchard, it shall not be considered for payment as wages. Nor shall there be any wages for a person who has performed some job voluntarily. Nor shall there be any cost of hire for the land or the implements, if they belong to the owner. Rather, it shall be more cautious not to account for the cost of the implements and tools purchased by the owner for farming and watering which remain intact after the production of the crop. There is, however, some sense in accounting for the cost of the implements which are rejected due to some damage to them for being used in farming or watering, though it is more cautious not to do so. There is difficulty in accounting for the expenditure incurred on farming or fruit produce, though it not far from being likely, but it shall be divided between the husk and wheat proportionately.

Problem # 3 Apparently, while accounting for the cost of the seed, its current price shall be taken into consideration, and not its proper price, regardless whether it belonged to the owner or he had purchased it. In case part of the seed belonged to the property on which payment of Zakãt was due, then apparently the poor (to receive the Zakat) shall share the owner in proportion to their share in the seed, and the rest shall be considered part of the expenditures.

Problem # 4 If some other property is included in the property on which Zakãt is due, the expenditure shall be divided between them proportionately. The same rule shall apply to the tax collected by the government, if it is imposed on the land in consideration of the total produce, and not particularly in consideration of the property on which Zakãt is due. Apparently the expenditure shall be divided between the husk and grain proportionately.

Problem # 5 If a labor spent on a crop for a number of years, then if it was initially meant for several years, it shall be divided into the number of years. The labor spent or the first year even if it is used perforce for other years as well, shall be accounted for in the expenditure of the first year, and its cost shall not be accounted for in other years.

Problem # 6 If a person doubts whether an item is accountable as expenditure or not, it shall not be accounted for in the expenditure.

The Third Issue:

Whatever is watered by running (or natural) water, whether by digging a canal or the like, or by natural water supply whose roots are fed by the underground or rain water, the Zakãt on it shall be one-tenth (or Ushr). Whatever is watered by means of manual labor through a bucket (of metal or leather), large leather bags, sprinklers, machines or other artificial means, the Zakãt on it shall be half of ‘Ushr. In case of whatever is watered by both, the decision shall be in favour of the manner in which it is watered more according to the prevalent custom. If both the manners are employed equally in way that neither of the methods can be attributed to it mainly, and it is said to be irrigated by both (equally or jointly), then half of it shall be charged ‘Ushr and the other half- ‘Ushr. Anyhow, caution should not be given up by charging ‘Ushr when the greater part of it is watered without artificial means, though it is deemed to be irrigated by both the means. In case there is doubt, payment of the smaller ( half-’Ushr) shall be obligatory, except when formerly it was irrigated without artificial means, and now there is doubt whether the past manner has been given up or not then the larger amount (i.e. ‘Ushr) shall be charged. Rather, according to the more cautious opinion, the larger amount (i.e. ‘Ushr) should be charged in all circumstances.

Problem # 1 The normal rains during the year do not exclude from its relevant rules whatever is watered by metal or leather buckets (or artificial means), except when it no more needs the artificial means, or it becomes one watered by both means.

Problem # 2 If person supplies water to an ownerless land by means of metal or leather buckets with or without any personal interest, and another person tills it, and the roots of the farm are fed on that water, according to the stronger opinion, payment of Ushr shall be obligatory on it. The same rule shall apply in case a person supplies the water itself for some purpose other than farming, and then decides to till the land in a way that the roots of the farm are fed on that water. Likewise, (the same rule shall apply), if a person waters a farm and it happens to be in a larger quantity and extends to another land, and then he decides to till that land too in a way that the roots of its farm may be fed on that water.

Chapter Five - Categories of Those Entitled to Receive Zakãt, and its Uses

There are eight Categories of those entitled to receive Zakät.

The First & Second Categories —The Poor (Fuqara’) & the Indigent (Masakin). The First category, namely the Poor (or Fuqara) (consist of those who do not have the yearly expenses for themselves and their dependants, while) the Second Category (namely the Indigent or Masäkin) are in a more wretched condition than those belonging to the First Category. Those belonging to these two categories are the ones who do not have the yearly expenses according to their position for themselves or their dependants at present nor the ability to earn their livelihood. So if a person has some means of earning through which he is able to maintain himself and his family in a way suitable for his position, he shall not be considered poor or indigent, and it is not lawful for him to receive Zakãt. The same is the case of a person having some industry or landed estate, etc. through which he can earn his livelihood. If a person is able to earn his living, but does not do so due to indolence, then he should not give up caution by abstaining from receiving or being paid Zakãt. Rather absence of its permissibility is not devoid of force.

Problem # 1 It is the beginning of the year on which depends the decision about one’s being poor or otherwise during the period of payment of Zakãt. So consideration shall be made for the sufficiency or otherwise (of the income to defray the expenses) during the period in question. So if a person has income sufficient to defray his expenses for some period during year, he shall be considered to be rich during that period. Then if after spending part of the income, it becomes insufficient to meet the expenses of the year, the person shall be considered poor.

Problem # 2 If a person has capital sufficient to defray the expenses for a year, but its profit is not sufficient for the purpose, or he has some property whose value is sufficient to meet his expenses for one or more years, but its incomes is not sufficient to meet his expenses, he shall not be considered a rich person, and so it shall be permissible for him to let his capital or property remain as it is and make good the deficiency by receiving Zakãt.

Problem # 3 According to the more cautious opinion, a person should not be paid more than his yearly expenses, as it is also more cautious for the poor not to receive more than that. For a worker whose earning is not sufficient or an owner of a property whose produce is not sufficient, or a businessman whose profit is not sufficient to meet his expenses, it is more cautious to confine the amount paid or received by them or paid to them to the extent that makes good their respective deficiency (to meet their yearly expenses).

Problem # 4 If a person needs a house for residence, a servant (for service) or a horse for  riding according to his position required for his honour and status, or garments for use in summer, winter on a journey or while staying within his town, even if they are meant for decoration, or beddings and utensils, etc., they shall not be a hurdle in the way of payment or receipt of Zakât. Of course, if a person has more than his normal needs in view of his position and status, so that if he spends it, it shall still be sufficient to meet his yearly expenses, then shall not be entitled to receive Zakãt.

Problem # 5 If a person is able to work to earn his living even if by collecting fuel or grass, but it is below his dignity, or he is not able to bear heavy labor due to old age or sickness, or the like, it shall be permissible for him to receive Zakãt. Likewise, (the same rule shall apply), a person is a businessman, or has had some profession which he is not able to pursue anymore due to lack of means or absence of customers.

Problem # 6 If a person has at present no business, profession or work according to his position, but he is able to learn it without much difficulty or hardship, then there is difficulty in the permissibility of his giving up learning the trade and receive Zakãt, and so caution should not be given up (in this case). Of course, there is no objection (in receiving Zakãt) during the training period once he starts learning the trade.

Problem # 7 It is permissible for a student to receive Zakãt from what is reserved for spending in the way of Allah even if he is able to work according to his position to earn his living when the work obstructs in his studies or causes slackness in it, regardless whether his studies are necessary for him individually or as a collective duty, or are approved for him.