How far the
cToglib tribe
are fubjeft to
Zakat.
An accidental
deftruc-
tion o f the
property inflow
what they may levy upon the tribe, under that denomination,
to the ufe of the poor .; wherefore it is neceffary that the tribe
fhould again pay Zakdt, fo as that it may be applied to its proper ob-
je<£t; but not their ‘Tribute. Some of our dodtors fay, that i f the
aforefaid tribe, at the period of paying Zakdt to the rebels, intend
in fo doing to give them alms, in this cafe Zakdt drops with refpedt
to that tribe, and there is no neceflity for their afterwards repeating
i t ; and the giving of Zakdt to any tyrant or plunderer whatever is
capable of this conftruction, becaufe perfons o f this defcription,
whatever wealth they may be apparently poflefled of, are yet actually
poor, on account of the retribution, which lies againft them
hereafter: but the former dodtrine (that the tribe fhould repeat
their Zakat) is preferable to this, becaufe here the Zakdt is rendered
and applied, a certiori.
T h e Zakdt of cattle is not incumbent upon an infant of the
tribe o f T’oglib ;* and whatever is incumbent upon the men of that
race is fo upon the women alfo, becaufe peace was made with them
upon thofe terms, “ that they Jhouldpay, o f all publick intpofis, doable
“ what was paid by Mujfulmans now the MufTulman women are
fubjedt to Zakat, and it follows that the women of the Togleb race
are fo in a double proportion; but no Zalkat whatever is required of
infant Muflulmans, wherefore the infants of the aforefaid tribe are
not fubject to it.
If the property be deftroyed, without being confumed by the proprietor
after Zakat has become due, (that is to fay, after the completion
of Hawldn Haw/,) the Zjakat upon it drops. Shqfe'i has
* One of the Arabian tribes, who refufed to embrace the faith, but agreed to pay tribute
to the Prophet. Th e tribe itfelf is fuppofed to be long fince extinft; but the laws to
which the people of it were fubjedt are applicable, in general, to all infidel tributaries,
faid
faid that if the property be deftroyed after the proprietor has been an
enabled to pay the Zakat upon it, either by the claimant making Zakat.
his demand of Zakdt, or by the proprietor finding a claimant, although
fuch claimant fhould not have demanded it, in this cafe the
proprietor is refponfible for the Zakdt, becaufe it was due from him,
and he did not pay it, although it was in his power to have done fo ;
moreover, if he fhould not pay the Zakdt upon the requifition of
the claimant, this circumftance ftands as a defiruBion of it on his
part. The argument of our dodtorsis, that the Zakdt due is a portion
or part of the Nifdb-, and, as its deftrudtion is involved in that of the
Nifdb, it drops of courfe, the fame' as where, a flave commits a
Jandyat [offence againft the perfon], in which cafe it lVincumbent
upon the proprietor to make over that flave to the FZalee-Janayat,
or perfon intitled to the compofition ; but, if the flave fhould die or
be loft in the interim, the proprietor is no longer refponfible for the
transfer of him, and that confequently drops; and, with refpedt to
the fecond argument of Shqfe'i, it may be replied, that no perfon can
be confidered as the claimant of Zakdt except a pauper whom the
proprietor may have fpeeified _as the object of its application, and the
cafe does not fuppofe the requifition to be made by fuch an one. But
if the collector demand the Zakdt, and the proprietor negledt payment,
and the Nifdb afterwards perifh, there are various opinions -
among the Haneefite dodtors, fome alledging that the proprietor of
the deftroyed Nifdb, in that cafe, ftill remains refponfible for the
Zakdt due upon it; whilft* others maintain that, in this- inftance
alfo, he is not refponfible, becaufe the Nifdb does not here appear to
have been deftroyed by him.
I f , after Hdwlan Hdwl, a portion o f a Nifdb (fuch as a third for A partial de-
Inftance) fhould be deftroyed, the claim of Zakdt is proportionably eludes a prodeftroyed,
m