آیت الله سیدمحمود هاشمی شاهرودی

Continuing the previous topic in the last volume, the author discusses two conditions in paying alms for the property: ownership and possibility of possessing. He mentions that the alms should be paid for the owned possession of individuals. Thus, he examines the Hadiths mentioned by some scholars to prove the condition of ownership. However, he notes that none of those Hadith refers to the subject and this condition is to be understood by some common reasons. The essay continues with the possibility of ownership and its difference with the previous condition. The author thoroughly differentiates between possessing and possibility of possessing, dividing ownership into using the owned possession and transmitting that. He also notes that there are two possibilities for possessing something; possessing that, and knowing the possibility or impossibility of possessing that. He highlights the ownership as the major condition and concludes that referring to three groups of narrations on this subject, using and possibility of using are major concepts and common behavior shows the range of each.

The author discusses the condition of ration in paying alms for the property in four aspects. First he examines the necessity of ration in paying alms; he mainly refers to certain narrations, checking their reasoning and sources and proving inappropriateness of their minor reasoning on the subject. Second, discussing the alms of grains and cattlebelonging to a crazy person, he criticizes the opinion of later jurisprudents, and highlights and completes the idea of known former jurisprudents, who support paying alms for grains and cattle of a crazy person according to the basis of religion.Next, he suggests certain reasons to prove paying alms for the merchandise of a crazy person, being recommendatory or obligatory, and insists on the similarity between the merchandise of the crazy and other persons. Finally, the author brings four opinions, rejecting the first three and proving the other one. He signifies that the alms should be paid if the owner of merchandise is not crazy at the time when he is obliged to pay,not during one year. He then concludes and explains effects of each one of the four opinions.