spent on his crop, and not what he spent on his family. It is deducted from what he spent on his crop, because it is a maintenance cost of the crop. This is also the view of Ibn 'Abbas. 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar said: He shall deduct both debts together, then extract from what remains after them. It has been narrated from Ahmad that the entire debt prevents zakat in manifest wealth (amwal zahirah). According to this narration, he calculates every debt he owes, then extracts the 'ushr from what remains if it reaches the nisa' (minimum threshold), and if it does not reach the nisa', there is no 'ushr upon it. This is because this obligation is zakat, so debt prevents its necessity, like zakat on hidden wealth (amwal batinah). Furthermore, it is a debt, so it prevents the obligation of the 'ushr, like the kharaj and what he spent on his crop. The difference between them according to the first narration is that whatever was a maintenance cost of the crop, the yield resulting from it must be allocated to other than it, so it is as if it did not yield anything.

Section: Whoever rents land and cultivates it, the 'ushr is upon him, not the owner of the land. This is the view of Malik, al-Thawri, Shuraik, Ibn al-Mubarak, al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir. Abu Hanifah said: It is upon the owner of the land because it is one of its maintenance costs, so it resembles the kharaj. Our position is that it is an obligation on the crop, so it is upon its owner, like the zakat on value if he prepared it for trade, and like the 'ushr of his crop in his own property. Their statement that it is a maintenance cost of the land is not correct, for if it were a maintenance cost of it, it would be obligatory upon it even if it were not cultivated, like the kharaj; it would be obligatory upon the dhimmi, like the kharaj; it would be estimated based on the size of the land, not the size of the crop; and it would be necessary to allocate it to the expenditures of fay' (spoils) rather than the expenditure of zakat. If one borrows land and cultivates it, the zakat is upon the owner of the crop because he is its owner. If he usurps it, cultivates it, and takes the crop, the 'ushr is upon him as well, because it was established upon his property. If the owner takes it before the grain hardens, the 'ushr is upon him. If he takes it after that, it is possible that it is also required of him, because his taking of it is traced back to the beginning of his cultivation, so it is as if he took it from that state. It is also possible that its zakat is upon the usurper, because it was his property at the time its 'ushr became obligatory, which is when the grain hardens.