Zak'at on items rented for profit.
Exploited
assets are defined as forms of wealth used to produce exchangeable services or
goods that are sold for profit without exhausting the exploited assets themselves.
They include assets rented for profit, such as residential buildings, means of transportation,
jewelry, and other material used for rental purposes. Also in this category are
livestock raised for milk, wool, or meat, and factories, plants, or equipment
used for producing goods.
The difference between assets used
for exploitation and those used for trading is that the former remain as
permanent capital, while the latter change hands.
We have two groups among the
jurists, one which restricts the zakatability of these assets and the one which
expands the zakatability to include those assets. This article is written chiefly
to refute those who restrict the Zakatability of exploitable assets for profit.
Those who
restrict the Zakatability of
Those who tend to limit the zakatability
argue
that:
1. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم defined
the zakatable
assets,
and did not mention among them these exploited ones such as buildings, rented
animals, and productive machinery. The principle is that people must not be
obligated to pay any charge without a clear text. There is no such text.
2. Jurists throughout the history of
Islam and in all its various countries did not obligate zakah on those assets.
3. We have on hand scholarly
opinions that negate the zakatability of exploited assets. Jurists have stated that
residential home, craftsman's tools, transportation animals, home furnishings,
etc., are all exempt from zakah. This means factories, buildings, cars,
planes, and ships are not zakatable, regardless of their size, value, or income.
When the earnings of these assets
are received, retained for one year, and exceed
nisab, they are then zakatable, like money.
Disproving
the evidence of the restrictors
1.
The fact that the Prophet (p) does not mention a certain asset
as zakatable
is
not in indication of non-zakatability, because the Prophets only mentions
growing assets common in Arab society at his time, such as camels, cows, lambs,
wheat, barley, dates, raisin, and silver money. Muslims throughout generations
obligated zakah
on
many assets by analogy to these mentioned by the Prophet, because of the general
terms used in the texts, and in consideration of the objectives of zakah. Some examples
are:
A. Al Shafi'i رضي الله عنه says in al
Risalah about
the zakatability
of
gold, "The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم imposed zakah on silver.
Afterward, Muslims collected zakah on gold, either by
virtue of a text from the Prophet that did not reach us, or by analogy, since
gold is used by people as a determinant of value for their exchange, before and
after Islam."[1] [Scans Below pg 192-194].
The possibility that there is a saying that did not reach
al Shafi'i is very remote. The only reason, then, is analogy, as stated by Abu
Bakr bin al 'Arabi in Sharh al Tirmidhi: "The Arabs' trade at the time
of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used silver currency, so the Prophet mentions it to mean all
money used. His mentioning of silver was understood as inclusive of all kinds
of money, but when people in later generations started asking for a specific
text on everything, God shut in their faces the door of guidance and they
deviated from the track of their predecessors."[2]
 |
| Scan from Sharah Tirmidhi, Vol 3, Pg 194. |
B. There is no clear text about the zakatability
of
trade assets. In spite of that, Ibn al Mundhir reports that they are zakatable
by
ijma'. Only the Zahiris
disagree.
C. Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه ordered zakah on horses because
he realized that they had become valuable wealth. Imam Abu Hanifah رضي الله عنه agrees with 'Umar رضي الله عنه on this issue as long as the horses are retained for growth and pastured
naturally.
D. Imam Ahmad رضي الله عنه obligates zakah on Money on the
basis of the report from the Companions and by analogy to grains and fruits. He
further obligates zakah on all minerals by analogy to gold and
silver, and by virtue of the general verse, "And out of that which We have
produced for you from the earth. . ."
E. Imam Al Zuhri, al Hasan, and Abu Yusuf (رضي الله عنه) obligate a one-fifth charge on pearls. amber, and other extracts from the sea,
by analogy to rikaz and minerals.
F. All known schools of thought
utilize analogy in the rules of zakah. The Shafi'ites,
for example, use analogy in the zakatability of food items although
the sayings mention only a few of these items by name.
2.
The claim that no Muslim jurists impose zakah on exploited assets
is refuted on the basis that the concept of retaining the asset and exploiting
it for production or rental is a modern innovation that did not exist at the
time of the great Muslim jurists. Yet we find their statements indicate that
such assets would be zakatable
3. The fact that jurists exempt
residential houses and craftsmens tools from zakah cannot be extended
to include buildings exploited for rent and factories or plants established by
industrial growth. Riding animals of the past are by no means similar to modern cars,
planes, and gigantic ships, while personal home furnishings of the past differ
substantially from today's furniture rental businesses. Our predecessors did
not err
when
they decided that furniture and tools are not zakatable; they applied
strictly and
rationally
the rules for zakatability to the circumstances of the age in which
they lived.
The
author of al
Hidayah rationalizes
the exemptions of such items "because they are utilized for
essential needs and also do not grow."[3] The author of al
'Inayah comments, "Each of these
two traits is alone an obstacle to zakatability. Residential
quarters are
indispensable
for people as is clothing. As for growth, it may either be a characteristic of the item itself, as
in the case of gold and silver, or it may be merely by designation, as in the case of
business inventory."[4] Jurists unanimously agree that a house taken as a residence by
its owner is not zakatable. This exemption is a expression of Islamic
justice, especially when compared with most
contemporary real estate taxes, which usually do not give such consideration.
It is essential to point out that
the rationalization or the exemption of housing, clothing, tools etc., from zakah on the basis that
they are non-growing and utilized for essential needs, is itself an indication
that any of these items becomes subject to zakah if it is used for
growth and for non-essential needs.
[1]. Al Risalah, Imam Shaf'ai, ed. Ahmad Shakir,
pp. 193-194.
[2]. Sharh al Tirmidhi, Imam Abu Bakr Ibn Al Arabi, Vol. 3, p. 104.
[3]. Al Hidayah with Fath al
Qadir,
Vol. 1, p. 487.
[4]. Al 'Inayah, p. 487
Note: The following paragraphs are taken from the book, "Fiqh Al Zakah by Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi."
No comments:
Post a Comment