but not p e a r l s
or am b e r .
A t i t h e due
upon the product
o f lands
watered by
natural
means;
Aboo Toofaf.— Upon pearls and amber there is no fifth due,' according
to Haneefa and Mohammed.— Aboo Toofaf maintains that upon thofe,
as well as upon all gems procured from the fea, there is a fifth ;
becaufe Omar ufed to levy a fifth upon amber.— Haneefa and Mohammed
argue, that the depths of the fea do not come under the
defeription of parts fubjugated by conqueft; and hence any thing
procured thence cannot be defined plunder, although it Ihould confift-
of gold orf iv e r ; and the cafe o f Omar levying a fifth upon amber
exifted only where that article was call up by the fea upon the Ihores;
and here they allb coincide that thefifth may be levied.
I f a perfon find, in common ground, a depofit of chattel property,
fuch as veflels or cloths, the fame is the property of the finder; and
there is a fifth due upon it, becaufe this comes under the defeription
o f plunder, the feme as gold or lilver.
C H A F. VI.
O f Z AK a T upon the Fruit8 o f the E a s t it.
U pon every thing produced from the ground there is due a tenth,
or tithe, which is termed Afhar whether the foil be watered by the
annual overflow of great rivers, (fuch as the Oxus and Shyhoon,') or
by periodical rains; excepting the articles of wood, bamboos, and
graft, which are not fubjedt to tithe.— This is according to Haneefa.
T h e two difciples- fey that tithe is not due except upon fuch things as
are permanently productive*, which-are fubjeft thereto, provided the
product amount to five Wufks, or fixty Sdas ; and they further hold
that herbs are not fabject to tithe. From this It appears- that the
* Such as fruit-trees.
difference
difference of opinion between Haneefa and the .two difciples exifls
with refpedt to two points in particular first, the fpecification of
the quantity as a condition; secondly, that of permanency in the
fubjefr. The argument of the two difciples, with refpeft to the
former of thefe, is-twofold first, .the prophet -has ordained that
there fhould be no Zakdt on lefe than five JHuJkst secondly, tithe
being as alms, to render it obligatory it .is requifite that feme Nifdb
be afeertained and eflablifhed, fo as to confine the contribution to the
rich,_The argument of Haneefa is that the prophet, ordained that
an A sha's. Jhould be held due upon every thing produced from the ground,
which ordinance is general in its-application, and without any fpecifi--
cation of quantity; and, with refpedt to the ordinance quoted by the '
two difciples, it is to be taken as applying folely to articles o f commerce;
that is to fey, that there is a Z akat upon thofe articles,' as
merchandize, where the. quantity amounts to.five W usks; becaufe,
in the time of the .prophet, fruits were fold by th& W’fk, and the value
of a IVuJk was eftimated at forty Dirrns, fo that-the. valup of five
Wufks was. two hundred Thrms, the amount of a Nifdb, in eftimated
property:— and, with refpedt t-o their fecond argument, the obligation
to tithe upon .the fruits of the earth is, connected with what it
yields only,, without' relpedt to the proprietor; (whence.it is that a
tithe is due upon the product of Wokfilands,') how, therefore, fhould
any regard be.had to the defeription o f the. proprietor, as being rich?
And hence alfo it is that Hawldn-Hawl is not requifite in the
prefent cafe, that having been eftablifhed .for the purpofe of afcer-
taining inereafe; and the fruit of the earth does itfel-f come under this
defeription.— T h e argument of the two difciples, with refpeft to the
fecond point, is, that the prophet has ordained that, “ upon vegetables
“ (that is, herbs) no alms .are due;” and by aims -is here.to be unddr--
ftood tithes ; as Zakat is not forbidden here, ftnee it is due provided
the property.amount to a N ifih -r-la reply to thefe obfervations,...the
arguments of Haneefa are twofold;-—first, the tradition before
quoted ;-—and, with fcipeCt to the Ordinance adduced by the.two
H difciples.'