The fourth consists of receivables arising from rent or hire. If payment is received after the accommodation or service has been fully provided, the ruling is as stated for the second category. If payment is received before the work has been completed—for example, someone hires himself out for three years for sixty dinars and receives them in advance—there are three opinions.
The first is that, when a year has elapsed, he pays zakat on the portion of the remuneration he has earned, namely twenty dinars, since it has remained in his possession for a full year from receipt. Thereafter, whenever a significant portion of the term elapses, he pays zakat on the remuneration thereby earned, until he has paid zakat on all sixty dinars by the end of the three years. This accords with Sahnūn’s transmission from Ibn al-Qāsim and with the reasoning underlying the opinion of someone other than Ibn al-Qāsim in al-Mudawwana concerning a debt gifted to the person who owes it after a year has elapsed over it.
The second is that, when a year has elapsed, he pays zakat on thirty-nine and a half dinars. This is the express statement of Ibn al-Mawwāz, based on the reasoning underlying the first opinion.
The third is that no zakat is due on any of the sixty dinars until the second year has elapsed. Once it has elapsed, he pays zakat on twenty dinars, because the work corresponding to that amount is a debt he owes, which is discharged only gradually as the year passes. A further year must therefore be counted for that amount from the time when its corresponding debt has been fully discharged.
As for receivables arising from wrongful seizure, there are two opinions within the school. The first, which is the well-known position, is that he pays zakat on it once, immediately upon receiving it, as with a receivable arising from a loan. The second is that he begins counting a fresh year from the day he receives it, as with a receivable arising from newly acquired wealth. It has also been said that he pays zakat on it for the past years. On this basis, ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz wrote to one of his officials concerning wealth that a governor had unjustly seized. He subsequently followed this with another letter directing that only one zakat payment be taken from it, not because it had been inaccessible to its owner.
As for receivables arising from loans, a trader who does not continually turn over his trading capital pays zakat on them once upon receipt, covering the past years. There is disagreement over whether a trader who does continually turn over his trading capital includes such receivables in his valuation. One opinion is that he does, which is the apparent meaning of what is stated in al-Mudawwana. Another is that he does not, which is Ibn Habīb’s opinion in al-Wādiha. This disagreement rests on the disagreement concerning someone who has two pools of wealth, one of which he continually turns over in trade while the other he does not. For when a trader lends some of the wealth that he continually turns over in trade, he thereby removes it from that trading activity.