Cafes which
do not confti-
tute a payment
o f
Zakat.
Perfons who
are not the
proper objects
o f its application.
Mdaz, before quoted, they Ihould deem the bellowing of Zakat upon.
Zimmees to be legal.
If a perfon employ the Zakdt upon his property in the erection of
a mofque, or the burial of the dead, yet his Zakdt is not conlidered
as being thereby difcharged, becaufe, in the payment of Zakdt, it is
eftablifhed as a principle that it lhall be made over to the perfon or
perfons entitled to it ; anch-fuch delivery does not appear in this
cafe.
If Zakdt be employed in difcharging the debts of a defundl, this
■ is not conlidered as a payment of Zakdt, becaufe delivery does not
appear in this inflance.
If a perfon employ the Zakdt upon his property in the purchafe of
a Have, for the purpofe of granting him his freedom, this is not a
difcharge of Zakat. Imdm Malik maintains that this aft amounts to a
due difcharge of Z a kd t; becaufe he alledges that the phrafe Feear-
Rikdb, which occurs in the Koran, applies to a {lave thus bought
and liberated : but our doctors argue that the emancipation o f a flave
amounts {imply to a dereliction of property, and does not in any
refpect bear the conftruction of delivery or transfer of poheffion.
I t is not lawful to bellow any part of Zakat upon the rich,
the prqphet having declared that “ alms are not lawful to the weal-
“ thy."—~Shcfei extends the ufe of Zakdt to warriors, although they
Ihould be rich ; but the precept here quoted is in proof againft
him.
I t is not lawful for an owner of property to pay the Zakdt upon
it- to his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather ; nor to his fon,
grandfon, or great-grandfon; becaufe the ufe of property between
him and thofe perfons is conjundl,— that is to fay, each of thofe re-
4 latives
latives is entitled to the ufe of the other’ s property; and hence
transfer of property, in its full fenfe, does not exift in.thefe cafes."
I t is not lawful for a proprietor to pay the Zakdt upon his
property to his -wife, becaufe the ufe of property is common between
the huftand and wife, according to general cuftom ; nor is it
lawful for a wife to pay the Zakdt upon her property to her huiband,
(according to Haneefa,') for the fame reafon. T h e two difciples have
faid that it is. lawful to give Zvkdt to the huiband, becaufe the wife
of AbS-Oola-bin-Mafaood alked the prophet, whether Ihe Ihould give
Sadka to her huiband ?— to which he replied,— “ You have here two
“ duties, one, thatof$Am :A, the other, that o f relationship.”— But
to this our doctors reply, from Haneefa, that by the term Sadka,
mentioned in this tradition, is to be underftood the Sadka N ifi, or voluntary
alms
I t is not lawful for a proprietor to bellow the Zakdt o f his property
upon his own Mokdtib, or Am Walid, or Modabbir, becaufe in
none of thefe cafes is there a transfer o f property, lince that which falls
to a Have becomes the property of his mailer;— and a mailer has, in like
manner, a fuperior right in the property of his Mokdtib, whence the
mailer’ s transfer of property to him cannot be eltablilhed.
I t is not lawful for a proprietor to bellow the Zakdt o f his property
tipon his Have, whom he may have partially emancipated, (according
to Haneefa,') becaufe luch a have is held by him to Hand as a Mokdtib:
but the two difciples maintain that the bellowing of Zakdt upon
fuch a have is legal, becaufe they hold this have to be a debtor to his
mallet ■ +.
* In opnontion to Zakdt, which comes under the defeription of Sadka Farz, or obligatory
aims; and confequently what is quoted above by the two difciples does not in any
refpeft apply to the prefent cafe.
t That is for the remainder o f his bondage. For a full explanation of this, fee
Ittdk.
VOL. 1. I I t