Q. I am afraid I have to come back to you again with a question of importance. You replied to my earlier question concerning a certain scholar’s ruling that zakah should not be paid on the same money twice, or every year. It is once only. Thus, one’s cash savings that are carried from one year to the next are liable to zakah only once in a person’s life. Once a person has given his zakah for all that he owns, he needs to pay zakah only for what he gets anew, but not what he paid zakah for previously. We showed this scholar what you wrote in reply, confirming that zakah is paid every year for all what one owns, including what he had paid zakah for in the previous years. He said that you have to provide evidence from the Qur’an or the Sunnah in support of your claim. Could you please provide such evidence?
A.H. Anwar, India
A. Zakah is payable on every type of property that is liable to growth. Scholars divide property that is liable to zakah into two categories: One, which is itself a growth, such as grains and fruits. This type is liable to zakah for the very reason that it exists. It is liable to zakah without need for such property to remain for a year in a person’s possession. Indeed its zakah becomes due on the day of its harvest. God says in the Qur’an: “It is He who has brought into beings gardens - both of the cultivated type and those growing wild — and the date-palm, and fields bearing different produce, and the olive tree, and the pomegranates, all resembling one another and yet so different. Eat of their fruit when they come to fruition, and give (to the poor) what is due to them on harvest day.” (6: 141) The other type is held for growth, such as money, commercial commodities, commercial investments, and animals such as sheep, cows and camels. For zakah to become due on this type of property, it must be held until the owner’s zakah date. If this type is held from one year to another, its zakah is due every year.
I suspect that the scholar in India is referring to the first type of property when he says that zakah is liable once only. If so, then he is right. This type of property is normally not held from one year to another. The farmer sells it shortly after its harvest. Indeed some farmers arrange for the sale of their produce before it is harvested.
They have to pay zakah on their produce on harvest day, as the Qur’anic verse makes clear. When such produce is sold to a merchant, it becomes a commercial item and the merchant should add it to his assets when he calculates his zakah. If a portion of it remains with him for more than one year, it is liable to zakah in the second year. Obviously this applies to types of produce that keep from one year to another, or that are processed in a way that gives them a longer life.
For the second type of property, zakah becomes liable not merely by its presence, but on condition of the passing of one year. This year starts for the first time when a person possesses the threshold of zakah, which is the equivalent of 85 grams of gold, and marked on the same date every subsequent year. This is considered the owner’s zakah date. If the scholar in India is talking about this type of property and he says that zakah is liable once only, except for what a person may earn in any particular year, then he is wrong. The evidence is there in the practice of the Muslim community ever since the days of the Prophet up to present day, and for the future until the end of human life on earth.
Take for example the fact that Abu Bakr went to war against those who refused to pay their annual zakah. They were considered apostates because they denied that it was a duty that they must pay. When some of the Prophet’s companions advised Abu Bakr that going to war might not be advisable at that particular time, he said: “If they were to deny me one small sheep which they used to give during the Prophet’s lifetime, I would still fight them.” Had zakah been once in a lifetime, except for newly gained money, the whole issue would not have arisen in the first place, let alone Abu Bakr raising several armies to fight them. If you consider Abu Bakr’s words carefully, you find him saying that he would fight even if he were denied a small sheep that the apostates used to give in zakah to the Prophet in his capacity as head of the Islamic state. If they had given the sheep to the Prophet, why would Abu Bakr fight them over it? It would have been due and paid already. Besides, he describes their action during the Prophet’s lifetime as repetitive. This is understood from his usage of the phrase “they used to give...”
If anyone claims that this was Abu Bakr’s attitude and does not constitute evidence, then he would indicate his lack of knowledge of Islamic law. Abu Bakr carried with him all the Muslim community, which at the time consisted of the Prophet’s companions. No one disagreed with him. Hence, his decision carried a perfect unanimity, and unanimity or ijama’ is a solid evidence for the deduction of rulings.
But I will provide further evidence. Ali ibn Abi Talib reports “Al-Abbas (the Prophet’s uncle) asked God’s messenger if he could pay out his zakah in advance, before it became due and he approved that.” (Related by Abu Dawood and Al-Daraqutni). By itself this Hadith does not indicate more than paying zakah in advance, but the event itself is reported in different Hadiths that make it clear that zakah was for the same property. The Prophet said to Umar: “We took last year Al-Abbas’s zakah for this year.” (Related by Al-Tirmidhi). Another version of this Hadith quotes the Prophet as saying: “We advanced Al-Abbas’s zakah for this year of ours last year.” (Related by Al-Darqutni).
The question that arises here is that if Al-Abbas paid to the Prophet his zakah for the current year, how could he pay his zakah in advance for the following year unless he was paying it for the same property he held? If zakah was payable once only, how could he know what zakah would be due from him next year? How would the Prophet ask him to pay it in advance?
Besides, note how zakah is mentioned together with prayer no less than 82 times in the Qur’an. No one says that prayer is due once only. The fact is that prayer, zakah and fasting in Ramadan are repeated time after time throughout the life of the individual. Only the pilgrimage and the Umrah are obligatory once in a lifetime. The practice of the Muslim community ever since the days of the Prophet, paying zakah year after year, is sufficient evidence.
The Prophet instructed his companions to invest their money and the money belonging to orphans under their care, “so that zakah does not eat it up.” How would zakah take up any amount if it was payable once in a lifetime, at the rate of 2.5 percent? Surely if you have a sum of money and you pay out 2.5 percent of it in zakah once only, you do not run the risk of exhausting your money, but if you have to pay out every year, your money will decrease substantially over time.
Finally, I want to add that the practice of the Muslim community is sufficient evidence for anyone who wants to know, because it is the practice repeatedly supported by all scholars over a very long period of time. If anyone thinks that this practice is wrong and that zakah is payable once only, then he has to produce evidence.
