182 chapter five
authority. In both cases, whatever was easier to the taxpayers was
to be used.
Also, perishable commodities, such as vegetables, melons, cucum-
ber, pumpkins, eggplants, carrots, herbs, aromatic plants, and simi-
lar, and wood for fuel, were all exempt from the tax. The simple
administrative criterion of differentiation was that the non-perishable
commodities were those which were normally measured in bushel,
qafìz, and weighed in rutl(a weight) such as wheat, barley, maize,
rice, sesame, hemp, almonds, hazel-nuts, walnuts, peanuts, saffron,
olives, safflower, coriander, caraway, cumin, onion, garlic, and sim-
ilar crops (all these examples of produce were given by Abù-Yùsuf
in his Kitàb al-Kharàj).
A threshold was also given. The tax was to be imposed on five
wasaqsor more. If the land produced less than five wasaqsno tax
was to be charged. In calculating the thresholds, quantities of different
produce were added up. If the land produced two and half wasaqs
of wheat and two and half wasaqsof barley (total of five wasaqs) or
if the produce consisted of one wasaq of wheat, one of barley, one
of rice, one of dates, and one of raisins (total of five wasaqs) the tax
was imposed. If the total was not five wasaqsno tax was imposed
except for expensive produce such as saffron which was taxed at the
above rates even if the produce was less than five wasaqs as long as
the value of the produce was equivalent to the value of five wasaqs
of cereals which was the cheapest yield of the land. If the value of
the saffron was less than the value of the cereals no tax was charged.
This was a distinct differentiation that considered the ability of the
produce to pay.
Furthermore, in leniency to the tax payer, if the yield was found
to be less than the threshold, five wasaqs, because the owner had
consumed part of the produce or fed his family, neighbours and
friends, or part of it was stolen, the tax will be calculated on the
balance after deducting the above. In allowing a threshold, Abù-
Yùsuf differed from his teacher Abù-Œanìfah whose view was that
nothing should be exempt from the tax even if it was of the small-
est quantity. In permitting the reduction of the produce used for
feeding the family and friends from the tax base the threshold was
in effect greater than it was under Abù-Œanìfah’s and was effectively
a surplus over the personal use. Also, allowing a similar deduction
for feeding friends and neighbours would make the threshold even
greater. This last allowance may have been deemed as being in line