OF MUHAMMADAN JURISPRUDENCE

Fiscal Law

The Umaiyad administration imposed the zakāt tax on horses; this tax was accepted in Syria and Iraq, but rejected, after some hesitation, in Medina. Both sides expressed their doctrine in traditions.¹ In favour of the tax are the following (in Tr. III):

Mālik—Zuhrī—Sulaimān b. Yasār—ʿUmar was unwilling to impose the zakāt on horses, but the Syrians insisted on paying it, and ʿUmar finally agreed to accept it but ordered the takings to be spent locally.

Shāfiʿī—Ibn ʿUyaina—Zuhrī—Saʿīb b. Yazīd—ʿUmar imposed the zakāt on horses. Zuhrī is the common link in the isnāds of both traditions.

Against the tax are directed the following (in Muw.):

Mālik—ʿAbdallāh b. Dīnār—Sulaimān b. Yasār—ʿIrāk b. Mālik—Abū Huraira—the Prophet decided that no zakāt was to be imposed on horses. The reference to the Prophet is meant to supersede that to ʿUmar. Sulaimān b. Yasār is taken from the isnād of the first tradition.

Mālik—ʿAbdallāh b. Dīnār—Ibn Musaiyib bases an analogy on the exemption of horses from the zakāt. ʿAbdallāh b. Dīnār is the common link in the isnāds of these two traditions.

Mālik—ʿAbdallāh b. Abī Bakr b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm—his father—ʿUmar b. ʿAbdalʿazīz gave written instructions not to impose zakāt on horses. This tradition with a spurious family isnād tries to enlist the authority of an Umaiyad Caliph against the Umaiyad regulation.

The Iraqians, down to Abū Ḥanīfa,² accepted the zakāt on horses;³ but Shaibānī,⁴ under the influence of the recent tradition from the Prophet, which later appeared in the classical collections, changed the doctrine.

The Umaiyad administration used to deduct the zakāt tax from government pensions, and Mālik states on the authority of Zuhrī that Muʿāwiya was the first who did it. In Iraq, this procedure was put under the authority of Ibn Masʿūd. But this practice was rejected by both schools⁵ for the systematic reason