Abstract:

One of the factors leading to the emergence of some rulings (ḥukms) related to zakāh in Ḥanafī fiqh thought peculiarly is the ʿayn-dayn distinction. What makes this distinction functional in terms of Ḥanafī fiqh thought is the way in which the dayn is interpreted in terms of its nature. Four issues come into prominence in terms of the relationship between the ʿayn-dayn distinction and the rulings on zakāh. These issues determine the scope of this article. The first of these is what kind of relationship exists between the full ownership-incomplete ownership (al-milk al-tām and al-milk al-nāqiṣ) distinction and the ʿayn-dayn distinction. The second is which type of dayn is subject to zakāh. The third is what kind of a relationship exists between the perfect execution (al-adā’ al-kāmil)-incomplete execution (al-adā’ al-nāqiṣ) distinction and the ʿayn-dayn distinction. The fourth is whether it is possible to pay the zakāh with the dayn. Answering the mentioned four issues in terms of Ḥanafī fiqh thought constitutes the purpose of this article. According to Abū Ḥanīfa, dayn (al-māl al-hukmī) on debtor’s dhimma has the quality of māl al-ḍimār and is not within the scope of full ownership for the creditor. According to Imāmayn, dayn is included in full ownership and is subject to zakāh, except for two exceptions. According to Abū Ḥanīfa, who classifies the receivables as strong, medium and weak receivables, strong receivables are subject to zakāh, but weak receivables are not. The fact that strong receivables are subject to zakāh is due to the fact that they have emerged as a result of the conversion of a ayn which is subject to zakāh to dayn. Two different views have been reported from Abū Ḥanīfa regarding the medium receivables. As a result of the ʿayn-dayn distinction, in Ḥanafī fiqh thought, the execution of zakāh obligation with debt was not seen as legitimate except for one exception.

Keywords: