Inflation and its effect on the rules of khums from the perspective of the two parties

Although the discussion of inflation and its effect on the rules of khums is not a new issue in Islamic jurisprudence and many Shiite and Sunni jurists have addressed it, but considering that today the fluctuations in commodity prices are abundant and commodity prices change every day. He finds that in order to inform everyone about the effect of inflation on the provisions of khums, it is necessary to study such issues. By studying the sayings of the jurists, it can be concluded that according to the Sunnis, inflation and increase in goods have no effect on the rules of khums. Because they consider khums obligatory only in spoils of war and in other cases they do not consider khums obligatory, but from the point of view of Shiite jurists, the product whose price was increased either belonged to khums and its khums was not paid, or did not belong to khums or belonged to khums. The khums was paid, in which case the ownership of the goods is either through trade or non-trade, each of which has its own rules, and this article is written to review its ruling.

The present study, based on the expression of different views of the jurists of the two sects and its critique and review, has dealt with the present subject in a library manner.

There has been an increase in the price of goods throughout history and the need to consider its effect on the rules of khums is also emphasized by Shiite and Sunni jurists. Therefore, jurists have expressed different views in this regard. Because Sunni jurists do not consider it obligatory to pay khums in such an assumption, and Shiite jurists believe that the goods whose price has increased, either belonged to khums and the khums was not paid, or did not belong to khums, or belonged to khums and khums was paid. Just as the owner has several assumptions about the purpose of buying the item, either he bought it for business or for personal maintenance. In addition, the way to obtain sex can be either commercial or non-commercial, which, considering its different assumptions, has caused differences in the views of jurists.