The Zakatable items of crops and fruits: the variance from Usul al-Fiqh perspective, the contemporary facts, and the opinions of jurists

Amer Aldershewı

Makale detayları

The Zakatable items of crops and fruits: the variance from Usul al-Fiqh perspective, the contemporary facts, and the opinions of jurists

Yazarlar:

Amer Aldershewı

Yayıncı:

Izmir Katip Celebi University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Mizanü'l-Hak: İslami İlimler Dergisi Issue 19, pp.491-514

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Arapça

Document ID (Org No.):

2001334919

pISSN:

2149-9896

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Muslim jurists dealt with the categories of crops and fruits subject to Zakāt. Abu Hanifa held that Zakāt is to be levied on everything produced from the land, whose cultivation is intended to grow the land. The majority of jurists, on the other hand, held that Zakāt is not obligatory on everything produced from the land. Rather, they restricted the obligation of Zakāt to certain categories. They explained this with a group of reasons, including that it has fruit lasting for a year, or that it is storable food, or on specific limited categories. The reason behind the juristss disagreement is due to the contradiction regarding the meaning of the evidence that requires paying Zakāt, in addiotion to the meaning of analogy Qiyās. Also, the reason for the disagreement comes from the principles followed by each school of thought. Each group relied upon a set of evidence that strengthened their opinion. This research adopts the inductive, analytical, and comparative approach by mentioning the reason the occure disagreement from Usul al-fiqh perspective, the opinion of the jurists, their evidence on the issue and its discusstion, and giving preference. The research comes up with a set of results. The most important one is that the researcher is more likely to say that Zakāt is obligatory in everything produced from the land whose cultivation is intended to grow the land. The researcher prefers this opinion due to the strength of the evidence of this group. Also, this opinion keeps pace with the tremendous developments of the era.

 Muslim jurists dealt with the categories of crops and fruits subject to Zakāt. Abu Hanifa held that Zakāt is to be levied on everything produced from the land, whose cultivation is intended to grow the land. The majority of jurists, on the other hand, held that Zakāt is not obligatory on everything produced from the land. Rather, they restricted the obligation of Zakāt to certain categories. They explained this with a group of reasons, including that it has fruit lasting for a year, or that it is storable food, or on specific limited categories. The reason behind the juristss disagreement is due to the contradiction regarding the meaning of the evidence that requires paying Zakāt, in addiotion to the meaning of analogy Qiyās. Also, the reason for the disagreement comes from the principles followed by each school of thought. Each group relied upon a set of evidence that strengthened their opinion. This research adopts the inductive, analytical, and comparative approach by mentioning the reason the occure disagreement from Usul al-fiqh perspective, the opinion of the jurists, their evidence on the issue and its discusstion, and giving preference. The research comes up with a set of results. The most important one is that the researcher is more likely to say that Zakāt is obligatory in everything produced from the land whose cultivation is intended to grow the land. The researcher prefers this opinion due to the strength of the evidence of this group. Also, this opinion keeps pace with the tremendous developments of the era.

 Muslim jurists dealt with the categories of crops and fruits subject to Zakāt. Abu Hanifa held that Zakāt is to be levied on everything produced from the land, whose cultivation is intended to grow the land. The majority of jurists, on the other hand, held that Zakāt is not obligatory on everything produced from the land. Rather, they restricted the obligation of Zakāt to certain categories. They explained this with a group of reasons, including that it has fruit lasting for a year, or that it is storable food, or on specific limited categories. The reason behind the juristss disagreement is due to the contradiction regarding the meaning of the evidence that requires paying Zakāt, in addiotion to the meaning of analogy Qiyās. Also, the reason for the disagreement comes from the principles followed by each school of thought. Each group relied upon a set of evidence that strengthened their opinion. This research adopts the inductive, analytical, and comparative approach by mentioning the reason the occure disagreement from Usul al-fiqh perspective, the opinion of the jurists, their evidence on the issue and its discusstion, and giving preference. The research comes up with a set of results. The most important one is that the researcher is more likely to say that Zakāt is obligatory in everything produced from the land whose cultivation is intended to grow the land. The researcher prefers this opinion due to the strength of the evidence of this group. Also, this opinion keeps pace with the tremendous developments of the era.

 Fakihler ziraî ürünler ve meyvelerin zekâtına dair farklı görüşler beyan etmişlerdir. Mesela Ebû Hanîfe yerden çıkan her şeyin zekâtının verilmesi gerektiği görüşünü tercih etmiştir. Cumhur ise yerden çıkan her şeye zekâtın vacip olmadığını, ancak zekâtın bazı illetlere bağlı olarak belli sınıflar için gerekli olduğu görüşünü savunmuştur. Bunlar meyvenin bir yıl kalması veya depolanabilen bir gıda olması ve belli sınıflardan olması gibi illetlerdir. Fukaha arasındaki ihtilâf ise zekâtın verilmesini gerektiren delillerin âm olması ile kıyasın arasındaki çelişki nedeniyle veya bir mezhepte uyulan prensipler nedeniyle gerçekleşmiştir. Bununla birlikte her görüşü destekleyen delilleri de bulunmaktadır. Araştırma konumuzu mukâyeseli analitik bir metotla inceledik. Şöyle ki konuyla ilgili çalışmamızda temel ihtilaflar, fakihlerin görüş ve delilleri bu görüşlerin tartışılması ve görüşler arasında tercihe gidilmesi gibi hususlara değinilmiştir. Çalışmanın nihayetinde birçok önemli sonuç elde edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlardan en önemlisi ise ziraat maksadıyla ekilen ve yerden çıkan her üründen zekâtın verilmesi gerektiği görüşüdür. Çünkü bu görüşü destekleyen deliller daha güçlüdür ve bu görüş gelişen çağa da uyum sağlamaktadır.

Makale detayları

The Zakatable items of crops and fruits: the variance from Usul al-Fiqh perspective, the contemporary facts, and the opinions of jurists

Yazarlar:

Amer Aldershewı

Yayıncı:

Izmir Katip Celebi University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Mizanü'l-Hak: İslami İlimler Dergisi Issue 19, pp.491-514

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Arapça

Document ID (Org No.):

2001334919

pISSN:

2149-9896

Fıqh

Variance

Zakāt

Zakatable items

Storable Food.Fıkıh

İhtilaf

Zekât

Zirâî ürün

Gıda.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Amer Aldershewı

Yayıncı: Izmir Katip Celebi University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Hukuku

Dergi: Mizanü'l-Hak: İslami İlimler Dergisi Issue 19, pp.491-514

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Arapça

Document ID (Org No.): 2001334919

pISSN: 2149-9896

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Amer Aldershewı

Yayıncı:

Izmir Katip Celebi University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Hukuku

Dergi:

Mizanü'l-Hak: İslami İlimler Dergisi Issue 19, pp.491-514

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Arapça

Document ID (Org No.):

2001334919

pISSN:

2149-9896