If he benefited from something other than profit. If he buys merchandise with a threshold [of wealth], and its value increases at the end of the year, he combines the gain and pays Zakat on the total, unlike if he sold the merchandise before the year ended for more than the threshold; in that case, he pays Zakat at the end of the year on the threshold and begins a new year for the excess. Our position is that it is growth occurring within the year, dependent on its origin in ownership, so it is combined with it in the year, like offspring, and as if it had not been realized [as cash]. Furthermore, it is the price of an asset, part of which is subject to Zakat, and it is added to that part before the sale, so it is added to it after it, like a portion of the threshold. Also, if it had remained as merchandise, he would pay Zakat on the entire value, so if it is realized [as cash], it is more appropriate; for it becomes definite. Moreover, this profit was dependent on the origin in the year [had it not] been realized, so by its realization, its year does not change. There is criticism regarding the hadith, and it is specific to offspring and to that which has not been realized; therefore, we draw an analogy to it.

Section: If he buys for trade that which is not a threshold, and it grows until it becomes a threshold, the year for it begins from the time it became a threshold, according to the opinion of most scholars. Malik said: If he has five dinars and trades with them, and a year passes over them while they have reached what is subject to Zakat, he pays its Zakat. Our position is that the year has not passed over a threshold, so Zakat is not obligatory on it, just as if it had decreased at the end of it.

Section: If he buys a share of property for trade for one thousand, and a year passes over it while it is worth two thousand, he must pay Zakat on two thousand. If the pre-emptor (shafi') comes, he takes it for one thousand, because the pre-emptor only takes it at the price, not the value, and the Zakat is upon the buyer because it became obligatory while it was in his possession. And if the pre-emptor did not take it