and Zakat falls away from it. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i and the scholars of the school of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Malik said in one of his two narrations: The ruling of trade does not fall away merely by intention, just as if he intended fodder for grazing livestock. Our argument is that personal ownership is the original state, and mere intention is sufficient to return it to the original state, just as if he intended trade for jewelry, or if a traveler intended to reside. Furthermore, the intention of trade is a condition for the obligation of Zakat on trade goods, so when he intends personal ownership, the intention of trade ceases, and thus the condition for obligation is missed. It differs from grazing livestock when he intends to feed them, because the condition in that case is grazing, not the intention for it, so the obligation is not negated except by the negation of grazing. If the commodity becomes for personal ownership by intention, and then he intends trade, it does not become trade goods by mere intention, as we previously stated. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and Al-Thawri. Ibn Aqil and Abu Bakr held the view that it becomes trade goods by mere intention. They reported it as a narration from Ahmad, based on his statement regarding someone whose land yielded five wasqs and it remained with him for years without him intending trade, that there is no Zakat upon him, whereas if he intended trade, then it is more pleasing to me that he pays Zakat on it. Some of our companions said: This is according to the more correct of the two narrations, because the intention of personal ownership alone is sufficient, so likewise is the intention of trade, and even more so; because obligation is prioritized over exclusion as a matter of precaution, and because it is more beneficial to the poor, so it is treated like valuation. Furthermore, Samurah said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded us to extract Zakat from what we prepare for sale. This falls under its generality. Also, because he intended trade with it, Zakat becomes obligatory upon it, as if he intended it at the time of sale. Our argument is that whatever does not establish a ruling by its entry into his possession does not establish it by mere intention, as if he intended grazing for livestock that is fed (fodder), and because personal ownership is the original state and trade is a branch derived from it, so it does not shift to the branch by mere intention, like a resident intending travel. Conversely, if he intends personal ownership, he returns it to the original state, and it shifts to that by mere intention, as if a traveler intends to reside. Likewise, if he intends personal ownership for trade wealth, its year is interrupted, and if he then intends trade for it, there is nothing due on it until he sells it and begins a new year with its price.

Section: If he possesses livestock for trade for half a year, then intends grazing for them and cuts off the intention of trade, the year of trade is interrupted, and he must begin a new year. This is what Al-Thawri, Abu Thawr, and the scholars of the school of opinion said, because the year of trade was interrupted by the intention of personal ownership, and the year of grazing is not built upon the year of trade. The view most consistent with the evidence is that whenever they are grazing from the beginning of the year, Zakat becomes obligatory upon them at its completion. Something similar to this is narrated from Ishaq, because grazing is a cause for the obligation of Zakat that was present throughout the entire year without conflict, so Zakat becomes obligatory by it, as if he had not intended trade, or as if the grazing livestock did not reach a threshold by value.

459 - Issue; He said: (And if he has a threshold for Zakat in his possession, and he trades with it, and it grows, he shall pay the Zakat of the original capital along with the growth, when the year has passed.)

The summary of this is that the year of the growth is built upon the year of the original capital, because it is a dependent in terms of ownership, so it follows it in the year, like offspring and progeny. This is the opinion of Malik, Ishaq, and Abu Yusuf. As for Abu Hanifa, he built the year of every acquired gain upon the year of its category, whether it was growth or otherwise. Al-Shafi'i said: If the gain is realized before the year, he does not build its year upon the year of the threshold, and he must begin a new year for it, based on his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "There is no Zakat on wealth until a year has passed over it." Furthermore, it is a complete gain not generated from what he already had, so it is not built upon its year, as if it were...