Explanation of the author's statement: "Chapter: One-tenth is obligatory on what is watered without expense, half of that on what is watered with expense, and three-quarters on what is watered by both. If they differ, then by the one that is more beneficial. And in case of ignorance, one-tenth."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said "Chapter: And one-tenth is obligatory on what is watered without expense, half of that on what is watered with expense, and three-quarters on what is watered by both. If they differ, then by the one that is more beneficial. If they vary, then by the one that is more beneficial". In this chapter, the author clarified the amount that is obligatory when the nisab is reached. What is obligatory? The obligatory amount is one-tenth, half of it, or three-quarters of it, depending on the expense. If it is watered without expense, the obligatory amount is one-tenth because its cost is lower. An example of what is watered without expense is what grows by rivers, what grows by rain, and what drinks by its roots. "Drinks by its roots" means it does not need water. The second is what comes from rivers and springs, and the third is what comes from rain. All of this is a reality.
If someone asks: If it is from rivers and you dig a canal or channel to water this land, is it with expense or without expense? The answer is without expense. The parallel case is if you dig a well and the water comes out as a spring, it is considered without expense, because bringing the water to the place is not an expense. The expense is in the watering itself, meaning it needs to be extracted at the time of watering, perhaps by machines or channels. This is what is considered with expense. As for merely bringing it to the place, where the only expense is digging or cutting the channel from the river or similar, this is considered without expense.
Now, "half of that with it" means with expense. The evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 4:278 and the 'athari is what drinks by its roots, one-tenth Jami` at-Tirmidhi 639Hasan (Darussalam). Al-Bukhari narrated it.
The wisdom behind this is clear. What is it? Yes, the high expenditure on what is watered with expense and the low expenditure on what is watered without expense. The Lawgiver considered this expense and this cost, and lightened the burden on what is watered with expense.
"And three-quarters of it with both" means what is watered with expense and without expense. If it is half and half, three-quarters of it is obligatory. An example is this palm grove that is watered with expense for half the year and without expense for half the year. That is, in the days of summer it is watered with expense, and in the days of winter it does not need... or it drinks from the rain. We say if it is watered by this and that, half and half, then three-quarters of it. "If they vary" means we are unable to determine whether it is half or less or more. He said "then by the one that is more beneficial", meaning the one by which the palm, tree, or crop benefits more is the one considered. If its growth is greater when it drinks from what is watered with expense than when it drinks from what is watered without expense, which is the one considered? The one considered is half of the one-tenth, because what was watered with expense is more beneficial, so it is taken into account. Thus, the situations are four.
What is watered purely with expense, purely without expense, with expense and without it equally, and with expense and without it with variation. If it is watered purely with expense, it is half of the one-tenth. If purely without expense, it is the one-tenth. If by both equally, it is three-quarters of the one-tenth. With variation, the more beneficial one is considered. And in case of ignorance, it is the one-tenth. That is, if they vary and we do not know which is more beneficial, the one-tenth is considered because it is more cautious and clears the conscience. And what is more cautious is preferable.
If someone asks: How can we say it is more cautious when it imposes on people what we are not certain of the evidence for imposing? We say because the original ruling is the obligation of zakah and the obligation of the one-tenth, until we know that it was watered with expense, then we drop half of it. Here, we did not know; we were ignorant of the situation, which one is more beneficial. So the precaution is to obligate the one-tenth. Yes.
If someone asks: If it is from rivers and you dig a canal or channel to water this land, is it with expense or without expense? The answer is without expense. The parallel case is if you dig a well and the water comes out as a spring, it is considered without expense, because bringing the water to the place is not an expense. The expense is in the watering itself, meaning it needs to be extracted at the time of watering, perhaps by machines or channels. This is what is considered with expense. As for merely bringing it to the place, where the only expense is digging or cutting the channel from the river or similar, this is considered without expense.
Now, "half of that with it" means with expense. The evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
In what is watered by the sky or is 'athari
فيما سقت السّماء أو كان عَثَريّاand for what is watered by irrigation, half of the Ushr.
وفيما سُقِيَ بالنّضح نصف العشرThe wisdom behind this is clear. What is it? Yes, the high expenditure on what is watered with expense and the low expenditure on what is watered without expense. The Lawgiver considered this expense and this cost, and lightened the burden on what is watered with expense.
"And three-quarters of it with both" means what is watered with expense and without expense. If it is half and half, three-quarters of it is obligatory. An example is this palm grove that is watered with expense for half the year and without expense for half the year. That is, in the days of summer it is watered with expense, and in the days of winter it does not need... or it drinks from the rain. We say if it is watered by this and that, half and half, then three-quarters of it. "If they vary" means we are unable to determine whether it is half or less or more. He said "then by the one that is more beneficial", meaning the one by which the palm, tree, or crop benefits more is the one considered. If its growth is greater when it drinks from what is watered with expense than when it drinks from what is watered without expense, which is the one considered? The one considered is half of the one-tenth, because what was watered with expense is more beneficial, so it is taken into account. Thus, the situations are four.
What is watered purely with expense, purely without expense, with expense and without it equally, and with expense and without it with variation. If it is watered purely with expense, it is half of the one-tenth. If purely without expense, it is the one-tenth. If by both equally, it is three-quarters of the one-tenth. With variation, the more beneficial one is considered. And in case of ignorance, it is the one-tenth. That is, if they vary and we do not know which is more beneficial, the one-tenth is considered because it is more cautious and clears the conscience. And what is more cautious is preferable.
If someone asks: How can we say it is more cautious when it imposes on people what we are not certain of the evidence for imposing? We say because the original ruling is the obligation of zakah and the obligation of the one-tenth, until we know that it was watered with expense, then we drop half of it. Here, we did not know; we were ignorant of the situation, which one is more beneficial. So the precaution is to obligate the one-tenth. Yes.