of the profit, or in that share together with other wealth acquired previously, if he has any, an amount liable to zakat. Ninth, a lunar year must elapse for the capital owner from the day he acquired the minimum amount described above. Tenth, a lunar year must elapse for the manager from the day he received the funds, even if he only began working with them shortly before the year ended.
Section
These three positions are internally consistent, each resting on an underlying principle and following analogical reasoning. Ibn al-Qāsim’s position on zakat on the manager’s share of the investment profit, however, neither rests on a consistent principle nor follows analogical reasoning. For some of the conditions governing this obligation, he takes both parties’ ownership into account. Regarding others, his statements are inconsistent: he takes account neither of both parties’ ownership together nor of either party’s ownership independently, as we shall explain and demonstrate, Allah Most High willing.
Section
The conditions for which he takes both parties’ ownership into account are Islam, freedom, and absence of debt. As far as I know, his position has never varied on the point that the manager is not liable for zakat on the profit unless both parties are free Muslims and neither has any debt. The conditions concerning which his statements are inconsistent are the minimum zakat threshold and the completion of a lunar year.
Regarding the minimum threshold, he holds three positions. The first is that it is assessed on the basis of the capital owner’s capital and his share of the profit, excluding any wealth he retains that he has not entrusted to the investment manager. If the capital and his share of the profit together reach an amount liable to zakat, the manager must pay zakat on his own share of the profit, however small or large it may be. This is Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in al-Mudawwana and his well-known, established view. In this position, he takes account neither of the manager’s ownership, since zakat becomes due on his share even when it falls below the minimum threshold, nor of the capital owner’s ownership, since he does not combine the capital and the owner’s share of the profit with the other wealth the owner holds outside the investment partnership. This is therefore a ruling based on juristic preference rather than analogy.
Section
Within this position, there is disagreement concerning a case in which the capital owner withdraws part of the capital from the manager before the year has elapsed, leaves the remainder with him, and then settles accounts with him over that remainder after the year has elapsed. One view is that if the capital owner has, in