the buyer and the one to whom the capital was paid; because his ownership remains established in it. If the contract is dissolved due to the destruction of the sold item, or the impossibility of delivering the goods for which the capital was paid, the price must be returned, and its Zakat is upon the seller.

Section: As for war booty, the combatants own four-fifths of it upon the conclusion of war. If it is of a single category in which Zakat is obligatory, such as currency or grazing livestock, and each individual's share of it amounts to a threshold (nisab), then Zakat is due upon it when the year passes. He is not required to pay its Zakat before taking possession of it, for the reason we mentioned regarding a debt owed by a solvent person. If it is less than the threshold, there is no Zakat upon it, unless it is grazing livestock and four-fifths of it reaches the threshold; in which case it constitutes a mixture (khulta), and it is not added to the fifth (which belongs to the state) because there is no Zakat upon that fifth. If the booty consists of various categories, such as camels, cattle, and sheep, there is no Zakat upon any one of them, because the Imam has the authority to distribute it among them by way of discretionary judgment; he may give each of them from whichever category of wealth he chooses. Thus, their ownership is not finalized over any specific thing, unlike inheritance.

462 - Issue: He said: "If a person is usurped of wealth, he pays Zakat on it when he recovers it for the past years, according to one of the two narrations from Abu Abd Allah. The other narration says: It is not like a debt which, when recovered, is subject to Zakat. But it is more beloved to me that he pays Zakat on it."

His statement: "If he is usurped of wealth" (idha ghusiba malan). That is, if a man is usurped of wealth. The first implied subject in the passive verb is hidden, and the 'wealth' is the second object, which is why it is in the accusative (nasb) case. In some manuscripts it reads: "wa idha ghusiba malahu" (if his wealth was usurped). Both are correct. The legal ruling regarding usurped property, stolen property, denied debt, and lost property is the same, and there are two narrations regarding all of them. The first is that there is no Zakat upon them. This was reported by al-Athram and al-Maymuni. Whenever it returns, it becomes like newly acquired wealth, and he begins a new year for it. This is the position of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i in his earlier opinion, because it is wealth that has left his possession and control, and he is prevented from it, so Zakat is not obligatory upon him, just like the wealth of a mukatab (an indentured slave). The second narration is that Zakat is obligatory upon it, because