Chapter Five
The Niṣāb for Grains and Fruit-Crops and the Amount of Zakāt Due on Them
The jurists concur that, with regard to grains, one-tenth is due on what is watered naturally by rain, while one-half of one-tenth is due on what is irrigated by manual effort, for this is established from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him.
As for the niṣāb, they differed over whether it is a pre-condition for zakāt on this category of wealth. The majority require a niṣāb of five awsuq.
A single wasq, by unanimous agreement, equals sixty ṣāʿ, and one ṣāʿ equals four mudd measured by the Prophet’s mudd—peace and blessings be upon him. The majority calculate his mudd as one rotl, one-third, and a slight excess in the Baghdad measure. Abū Yūsuf eventually adopted this view after debating with Mālik, relying on the testimony of the people of Madinah. Abū Ḥanīfah, however, held that a mudd is two rotls and that a ṣāʿ is eight rotls.
Abū Ḥanīfah further maintained that there is no niṣāb for grains and fruits.
The root of their disagreement lies in the apparent conflict between a general text and a specific one.
The general text is the Prophet’s statement: “On what the sky waters the due is one-tenth, and on what is irrigated the due is half of one-tenth.”
The specific text is his statement: “No charity is due on less than five awsuq.” Both ḥadīths are sound.
Whoever holds that the specific qualifies the general concludes that a niṣāb is indispensable; this is the well-known opinion. Whoever regards the general and the specific as mutually conflicting—because we do not know which of the two came later, and because either may abrogate the other, in whole or in part—may give priority to the general and thus deny the requirement of a niṣāb.
In my view, the majority’s interpretation—treating the specific as an exception to the general—is in fact a case of preferring the explicit to the merely apparent where the two collide. Reflect on this, for it is what led the majority to link the specific to the general as an exception.
Abū Ḥanīfah’s reliance on the general text to negate the niṣāb is weak, because the ḥadīth’s purpose is simply to state the rate that is due.
On the question of niṣāb, they further disagreed in three subsidiary issues:
- Whether different kinds of grain may be combined to complete the niṣāb.
- Whether the niṣāb for grapes and dates may be determined by estimation (kharṣ).
- Whether what a man consumes of his own produce before harvest and collection counts toward the niṣāb or not.