As for the third issue:
Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah maintain that whatever a person consumes of his own fruit or crops before the harvest is nevertheless included when calculating the zakāt-liable minimum (niṣāb). Al-Shāfiʿī, by contrast, holds that it is not included; the estimator (khāriṣ) must leave with the owner whatever he and his family customarily eat.
The source of their disagreement lies in the tension between the transmitted reports and what might be inferred from the Qur’an and analogical reasoning.
- The Sunnah:
Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathmah relates: “The Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—sent Abū Ḥathmah to make an estimation. A man came and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, Abū Ḥathmah has over-assessed me.’ The Prophet replied, ‘Your cousin alleges that you have over-assessed him.’ The man said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I left for him the amount his family will eat fresh, what he gives to the poor, and what the wind causes to fall.’ The Prophet said, ‘Your cousin has actually added in your favor and has dealt justly with you.’”
It is also reported that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “When you make an estimation, leave one-third; if you do not leave one-third, then leave one-quarter.”
Jābir likewise narrates that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “Make allowances in the estimation, for the property includes the ʿarīyah allowance, what is eaten, bequests, the worker’s share, unforeseen liabilities, and the obligatory due in dates.”
- The Qur’anic text and analogy that seem to oppose these reports: Allah the Exalted says,
“Eat of its fruit when it ripens, and give its due on the day of harvest.” (6:141)
Analogy adds that this is wealth upon which zakāt is obligatory. Regarding the three categories from which zakāt is taken in kind, all jurists agree that if the dues are paid from the produce itself, the obligation is fulfilled. They differ, however, on whether it is permissible to pay the cash value instead.
Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī rule that substituting cash for what the Law explicitly names in zakāt is impermissible, whereas Abū Ḥanīfah allows it, whether or not one still possesses the specified produce.
The crux of the dispute is this: Is zakāt primarily an act of worship or merely a financial right of the poor?
• Those who see it as worship say that paying it in a form other than the one prescribed is invalid, for an act of worship performed outside its mandated manner is null.
• Those who view it as a right of the poor see no difference between paying in kind or in cash.
The Shāfiʿīs reply—even granting that zakāt is a right of the poor—that the Lawgiver deliberately tied that right to the very substance of the wealth so that the poor would share with the rich in the actual property.
The Ḥanafīs answer: the explicit mention of particular commodities was