As for trade receivables, there is no disagreement that they follow the same ruling as trade goods: a trader who continually turns over his trading capital includes them in his valuation, while one who does not pays zakat on them once upon receipt, covering the past years. Likewise, the former values his trade goods, whereas the latter pays no zakat on them until he sells them, at which point he pays zakat once, covering the past years.

If he collects less than the minimum threshold from a debt, or sells goods for less than that threshold after a year has elapsed, no zakat is due until further collections or sales bring the total to the threshold. Once that threshold is reached, he pays zakat on the entire amount, whether the sums first collected remain in his possession or have already been spent.

There is disagreement, however, if those sums were lost through no fault of his. Muhammad ibn al-Mawwāz said that he is not liable for zakat on the amount lost, since it is comparable to wealth lost without negligence after a year has elapsed over it. By analogy with Mālik’s position on the case to which he compared it, zakat would cease to be due on the remainder of the debt if it falls below the minimum threshold. According to Muhammad ibn al-Jahm’s position on that case, however, he pays zakat on the remainder when he collects it, even if it is below the threshold. This is the more evident view, because the poor stand in the position of partners alongside him: the loss is therefore borne by both him and them, and whatever remains is shared between them, whether little or much. Ibn al-Qāsim and Ashhab said that he pays zakat on the entire amount.

This disagreement applies only when the loss occurs after enough time has passed for him to have become liable had the amount been subject to zakat. If it is lost immediately upon receipt, there is no disagreement that he is not liable for an amount below the threshold, just as he is not liable for a full threshold amount lost in those circumstances. Ibn al-Mawwāz’s view is more evident, because no zakat is due on an amount below the threshold; he should therefore not be liable for it when the loss occurs after a longer interval, just as he is not liable when it occurs shortly after receipt. The reasoning behind Ibn al-Qāsim’s and Ashhab’s view—that he remains liable for what is lost through no fault of his after a longer interval—is to give consideration to the opinion that zakat is due on a debt even before it is collected. It is thus an instance of juristic preference.

Section

If newly acquired wealth is received between successive debt collections, and he spends each sum as he collects it and each newly acquired sum as soon as a year has elapsed over it, Ashhab’s position is that he combines every amount collected from the debt, and every newly acquired sum on which a year has elapsed, with all sums previously collected from the debt and spent, and with all newly acquired sums on which a year had previously elapsed and which he then spent.

Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, however, is that he combines the amount collected from the debt with sums previously collected from the debt and spent, and with newly acquired sums spent after a year had elapsed over them. He does not combine newly acquired wealth on which a year has elapsed with sums from the debt spent after