Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > The eight categories of zakat recipients > Fi sabilillah, the traveler and distribution rules
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
This second part of the chapter on the recipients of the zakat presents the seventh category, spending in the way of Allah (fi sabilillah), with its four types: the fighters, the interests of war, the pilgrims, and the seekers of knowledge. It then covers the eighth category, the stranded traveler (ibn as-sabil), the conditions for giving to him, and the ruling on any surplus that may remain in his hands. It closes with cross-cutting questions: whether the eight categories must be given equal shares, the case of one who doubts he paid the zakat, releasing a debt counted as zakat, and the zakat of one who dies without paying it.
The seventh category is spending in the way of Allah. It has five types. The first type: the fighters (ghuzat) in the way of Allah who have no share in the diwan, but who volunteer for jihad according to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, against the view of the Malikis. On this type the jurists agree in general terms: it is permissible to give them from the zakat whatever they need to equip themselves for the campaign: a mount, weapons, provisions, and everything a fighter needs for the whole duration of the campaign, however long.
The majority of jurists, namely Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad, did not require the fighter to be poor: giving to a rich man is permitted, because he does not take for his own benefit but for the benefit of the Muslims; poverty is therefore not required of him.
The majority argues this from the word of Allah:
"and in the way of Allah"
Surah At-Tawbah, 60
The rich man enters into it just as the poor one does. They also cite his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
The charity is not lawful for a rich man, except in five cases: the fighter in the way of Allah...Authentic hadith, quoted earlier
He denied the lawfulness of the charity to the rich and excepted the fighter from them; an exception to a negation establishes affirmation, and from this the lawfulness of the charity for the rich fighter follows.
Furthermore, Allah made the poor and the needy two categories and then counted six other categories: the attribute of the first two is therefore not required in the remaining categories, any more than the attribute of the remaining categories is required in the first two. In addition, this fighter takes for our need of him: he resembles the collector (amil) and those whose hearts are to be reconciled. As for the people of the other shares, the poverty that counts is that of the one who takes for his own need, not that of the one who takes for our need of him.
Abu Hanifa and his companions said: if the fighter is rich, that is, if he owns the nisab of any kind of wealth, he is not given from the zakat; if he does not own the nisab, he is given, even if he earns a living, because earning keeps him away from jihad. They argue this from the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The charity is not lawful for a rich man," and from his saying to Mu'adh:
Inform them that Allah has made obligatory upon them a charity in their wealth, taken from their rich and returned to their poor.Authentic hadith, quoted earlier
He thus divided people into two groups: a group from whom it is taken and a group to whom it is given. If giving the charity to the rich man were permitted, this division would be annulled, and that cannot be. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan of the Hanafis, for his part, held that the word of Allah "and in the way of Allah" (Surah At-Tawbah, 60) refers to the pilgrim whose journey has been cut short (munqati al-hajj), and not to the fighters cut off from campaigning.
References: Ash-Sharh al-Kabir with the commentary of Ad-Dasuqi (1/497), Al-Istidhkar (3/213), Al-Ishraf (1/193), Bilghat as-Salik (1/429), Ahkam al-Qur'an by Ibn al-'Arabi (2/957), Al-Majmu' (7/348), Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (3/96), Al-Umm (2/60), Ar-Rawda (2/321), Al-Hawi al-Kabir (2/512), Al-Mughni (6/333), Manar as-Sabil (1/243), Matalib Uli an-Nuha (2/147-148), Al-Ifsah (1/367).
Ibn Nujaym the Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: his statement "the fighters whose campaign has been cut short" is what is meant by the word of Allah "and in the way of Allah" (Surah At-Tawbah, 60). This is his choice, following the view of Abu Yusuf, whereas according to Muhammad it is the pilgrim whose journey has been cut short. It has also been said: the pursuit of knowledge; he restricted himself to that in Al-Fatawa az-Zahiriyya, and explained it in Al-Bada'i' as covering all avenues: it includes everyone who strives in obedience to Allah and in the ways of goodness, if he is in need.
The Malikis stated explicitly that the fighter must be one upon whom jihad is obligatory, because he is a Muslim, a male, past puberty and capable, and that he must not be of the household of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt).
The second type: the interests of war (masalih al-harb). This type is mentioned by the Malikis: the correct view with them is that it is permissible to spend from the zakat on other interests of jihad besides the giving of the zakat itself, such as building ramparts for the town to protect it from enemy invasion, building warships, or paying a spy who gathers intelligence on the enemy for us, whether he is a Muslim or an unbeliever. Some Shafi'is permitted buying weapons and instruments of war with the zakat and making them an endowment (waqf) that the fighters use and then return.
The Hanbalis did not permit this in the school, and it is the apparent practice of the rest of the jurists, who restricted the share of the way of Allah to the fighters alone, or to the fighters together with the pilgrims, as will come. It is therefore not permissible to spend from the zakat on this type. The reasons are: there is no transfer of ownership in it; or the transfer is to people who are not among the recipients of the zakat; or, as Imam Ahmad said: he has not handed the zakat over to anyone, while he is commanded to hand it over.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Ahmad said: the fighter is given the price of the horse, but the one paying the zakat should not take charge of buying the horse himself, because the obligation is to hand over the zakat: if he buys it himself, he has given nothing but a horse. The same ruling applies to buying weapons and provisions. He said elsewhere: paying the price of the horse and of the sword is more appealing to me, even if he buys it himself: I hope it suffices. He said further: a man buys with his zakat the horse he rides and the lance, and equips himself, because he has spent the zakat in the way of Allah; it is as if he had handed it to a fighter who had spent it on that purchase.
He said: he does not buy with the zakat a horse that is to remain a consecrated (habis) horse in the way of Allah, nor a house, nor an estate that he would dedicate to the ribat, nor does he make any of them an endowment for the mujahidin, because he has not handed the zakat to anyone while he is commanded to deliver it. He said: a man does not go out on campaign on the horse he has taken out from the zakat of his wealth, because he may not make himself the distributor of his own zakat, just as he may not use it to pay his debt; as soon as he takes the horse he bought with his money, he has become the distributor of his zakat.
References: Al-Mughni (6/334), Al-Mubdi' (2/324), the commentary of Ad-Dasuqi (1/497), Al-Majmu' (7/351).
This ruling concerns the zakat. If the mujahidin are in need of money and there is no zakat available, or if it exists but does not suffice for the jihad, and if the bayt al-mal, wholly or partly, is incapable of meeting this need, this is what Imam Ash-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it belongs to the imam, if he is just, to impose on the rich what he sees as sufficient for this burden for the time being, until the money of the bayt al-mal appears; then consideration is given to levying on harvests and fruits and the like, so that this selection among people does not repel hearts; this is done by taking little from many, in such a way that no one is wronged and the aim is achieved.
If such a system was not transmitted from the early generations, it is because the bayt al-mal was abundant in their time, unlike ours: the issue is even more pressing in our time, and the benefit is manifest. If the imam did not establish this system, the authority of the imam would collapse and our lands would become a prey for the unbelievers.
References: Al-I'tisam (2/121); see also Ghiyath al-Umam fi at-tiyath az-zulm (p. 380, 394) by Imam al-Juwayni, the first of the jurists to state it.
Imam As-Sarakhsi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the soundest view is to say that the imam may do this in case of need. If there is no money in the bayt al-mal and the need arises to equip an army to defend the Muslims, he may impose on the people what he needs for that, because he is charged with looking after the Muslims. If he does not equip the army to repel the enemy, the polytheists will overpower the Muslims and seize their wealth, their children and their lives; good management therefore consists in obliging the holders of wealth to the extent necessary to equip the army, so that they are secure in all other respects.
This is the meaning of the report that follows: Jarir ibn Abdallah reported that Mu'awiya (may Allah be pleased with him) imposed a levy for mobilization on the people of Kufa and exempted Jarir and his son from it. Jarir (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "We do not accept that, but we place our wealth at the service of the fighter." Imposing the levy means obliging them, to the extent of the need, to equip the army. Mu'awiya had therefore wished to grant them a favor by exempting them: Jarir was held in honor among the people, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) treated him with consideration, to the point that Jarir (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "He never looked at me without smiling, even in his prayer."
Jarir nevertheless did not accept this favor from him, knowing that jihad with wealth carries the meaning of reward and that the honor befitting the believer is to race toward good deeds and acts of obedience. He therefore said: "I will not hand the money over to you, but I will hand it myself to whomever I choose among the fighters," so that it would appear that he was not being compelled in any way.
Reference: Al-Mabsut (10/20-21).
Imam Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars agreed that if a need befalls the Muslims after the zakat has been paid, it becomes obligatory to spend money on meeting it. Malik said: it is obligatory upon the people to ransom their captives even if that consumes all their wealth; and this too is a consensus.
Reference: Tafsir al-Qurtubi (2/242).
The third type: the pilgrims. The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis (against Muhammad ibn al-Hasan), the Malikis, the Shafi'is, and Imam Ahmad according to one narration which Ibn Qudama chose, declaring it the sound one, hold that it is not permissible to spend from the zakat on the hajj. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this is the soundest, because "the way of Allah" when used without restriction refers only to jihad: everything the Qur'an mentions of "the way of Allah" is meant as jihad, with rare exceptions. What is contained in this verse must therefore be carried back to that meaning, which is its apparent sense.
The zakat, indeed, is only given to one of two men: one who needs it, like the poor, the needy and the captives for the settlement of their debts; or one whom the Muslims need, like the collector, the fighter, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and the debt-ridden man for the mending of relations. The poor man's hajj brings the Muslims no benefit and they have no need of it; and he has no need of it either: the poor man has no obligation incumbent on him that would need to be lifted, and there is no benefit for him in its being imposed on him, for imposing it is a hardship whose prescription Allah lightened in his regard. Setting this amount aside for the needy of the other categories, or spending it in the interests of the Muslims, is better.
Imam Ahmad, in the second narration (chosen among his companions by al-Khiraqi, Abu Bakr ibn Abd al-Aziz and Abu Hafs al-Barmaki), holds that the poor man may be given from the zakat in order to perform the obligatory hajj, and that the hajj falls under the way of Allah, based on what Abu Dawud narrated from Umm Maqil:
When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) performed the Farewell Pilgrimage, we had a camel which Abu Maqil had devoted to the way of Allah; we were struck by illness and Abu Maqil died. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) set out; when he had finished his pilgrimage I came to him and he said: "Umm Maqil, what prevented you from setting out with us?" She said: "We had made ready, but Abu Maqil died; yet we had a camel on which we used to perform the pilgrimage, and Abu Maqil bequeathed it to the way of Allah." He said: "Why, then, did you not set out upon it? The pilgrimage is indeed in the way of Allah..."Authentic hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud (1989) and others
Ibn Qudama said: if one holds that the zakat may be spent on the hajj, it is only under two conditions. The first: that he owns nothing else with which to perform the hajj, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The charity is not lawful for a rich man, nor for a strong able-bodied man"; he also said: "The charity is not lawful for a rich man, except in five cases," without counting the pilgrim among them. For the pilgrim takes for his own need, not for the Muslims' need of him: need is therefore taken into account in his case, as in the case of one who takes for his poverty.
The second: that he takes for the obligatory hajj, as Abu al-Khattab mentioned; for he needs to lift what is obligatory upon him and to clear his liability; as for the voluntary pilgrimage, he has no excuse for neglecting it. Al-Qadi said: the apparent sense of Ahmad's words is the permissibility for the obligatory as well as the voluntary pilgrimage, and this is the apparent sense of the statement of al-Khiraqi; for all of it falls under the way of Allah; and since the poor man has nothing obligatory upon him, his pilgrimage is like the voluntary one. On this basis one may give him what enables him to perform a complete pilgrimage and what suffices him in his hajj; but he may not perform the hajj from his own zakat, just as he may not go out on campaign with it.
References: Al-Mughni (6/334), Al-Mubdi' (2/425).
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan of the Hanafis held that the word of Allah "and in the way of Allah" (Surah At-Tawbah, 60) refers to the pilgrim whose journey has been cut short, including the poor among them, based on the hadith of Umm Maqil mentioned above. The disagreement between Abu Yusuf and Muhammad concerns only the interpretation, not the ruling: they agree that all the categories are given only on the condition of poverty, with the exception of the collector. The poor pilgrim cut short on his journey is therefore given by consensus. The one intending the pilgrimage, however, is given from the zakat according to the Shafi'is, by applying to him the status of the stranded traveler (ibn as-sabil).
References: Bada'i' as-Sana'i' (2/493), Sharh Kitab as-Siyar al-Kabir (5/2078), Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Jassas (4/329), Al-Mabsut (3/10), Al-Hidaya (1/112), Durrar al-Hukam (2/394), Al-Ishraf (1/193), Al-Ifsah (1/366), Al-Majmu' (7/348, 7/354), Rawdat at-Talibin (2/321), Nihayat al-Muhtaj (6/156), Al-Mughni (6/334, ed. Dar al-Fikr).
The fourth type: the pursuit of knowledge. A group of Hanafis stated explicitly that the word of Allah "and in the way of Allah" (Surah At-Tawbah, 60) refers to the seekers of knowledge. Ibn Nujaym the Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: his statement "the fighters whose campaign has been cut short" is what is meant by the word of Allah "and in the way of Allah" (Surah At-Tawbah, 60); this is his choice, following the view of Abu Yusuf; according to Muhammad, it is the pilgrim whose journey has been cut short; it has also been said: the pursuit of knowledge, and he restricted himself to that in Al-Fatawa az-Zahiriyya.
It likewise appears from the words of Imam Ibn Abidin that he inclined to this meaning as well: "The interpretation by the seeker of knowledge is fitting, especially since it is stated in Al-Bada'i': the way of Allah covers all avenues, and it includes everyone who strives in obedience to Allah and in the ways of goodness, if he is in need."
References: Al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq (2/260), Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/343), Durrar al-Hukam (2/394).
It thus covers everyone who strives in obedience to Allah and in the ways of goodness, if he is in need. He was given this name because of his adherence to the road: he is not in his homeland to shelter in his dwelling. The jurists agreed on the existence of the traveler's share; they differed, however, on who he is: is he the passing traveler who has nothing with which to return to his family, or is it so, and in addition one who sets out on a journey?
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis, hold that the stranded traveler is the passing traveler who has nothing with which to return to his land, and does not include the one residing in his land or elsewhere who intends to travel to a land other than his own. Their arguments: first, the sabil is the road, and the stranded traveler is the one who holds to the road and is found upon it, as one says "son of the night" of one who goes out much by night; the resident in his land is not on a road and does not take the ruling of one who is upon it, so that the ruling of traveling is not established by mere resolve without setting out. Second, nothing is understood by the stranded traveler but the stranger, not the one who is in his homeland and dwelling place, even when the need reaches its end; it is therefore necessary, according to the majority, to apply the term of the verse to the stranger alone.
He is given even though he is wealthy in his town, because he is unable to reach it and benefit from it: he is as though it did not exist in his regard. If he is poor in his town, he is given for his poverty and his status as traveler: two causes combined in him. If he is rich in his town, he is given for his status as traveler, because he is unable to reach his wealth: he has become like one who has nothing. He is given what brings him to his town, for the giving is motivated by this need and is measured by it.
References: Bada'i' as-Sana'i' (2/495), Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/343), Fath al-Qadir (2/214), Adh-Dhakhira (3/148-149), the commentary of Ad-Dasuqi (1/497-498), Bilghat as-Salik (1/492), Al-Mughni (6/335), Al-Ishraf (1/193), Al-Ifsah (1/369).
The Hanbalis permitted, if the traveler is passing through intending a land other than his own, giving him what suffices for his onward journey to his destination and for his return to his land; for this is aid in a lawful journey and in attaining a legitimate goal. The Hanafis said: one who is in his town with no money in hand to spend, while he has wealth in a town other than his own which he cannot reach, is to be attached to the stranded traveler. Everyone absent from his wealth is attached to him, even if he is in his town; for need is what counts and it is present: he is poor in hand. If he is apparently rich, it is permitted to give him in the town of the giving if his money is deferred, or owed by an absent person, an insolvent one or a defiant one: that does not prevent him from taking from the zakat.
The Shafi'is, and Imam Ahmad according to a narration reported by the vizier Ibn Hubayra in Al-Ifsah, hold that the stranded traveler is both the cut-off passing stranger and the one who sets out on a journey, that is, one who intends a journey and finds no provision: both are given what they need for going and returning. For the one who sets out on a journey does not do so for any act of disobedience; he resembles the cut-off passer-by, each of the two needing the preparations of travel, although applying the name of traveler to the second is metaphorical. On this basis it is permissible to give from the zakat to one who intends the hajj, if he does not find in the town from which he sets out anything with which to perform it.
References: Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/343), Fath al-Qadir (2/214), Bada'i' as-Sana'i' (2/495), Tabyin al-Haqa'iq (1/298), Al-Majmu' (7/354), Rawdat at-Talibin (2/321), Nihayat al-Muhtaj (6/156), Al-Ifsah (1/369).
The traveler is not given from the zakat except under conditions. The first: that he be, in the place where he is, in need of what will bring him back to his homeland; if he has what brings him back, he is not given, for the constant aim is to bring him to his town. His wealth outside his journey does not harm him: one gives to the man whose sufficiency is not on his route, even if he owns wealth in another town, whether it is the one he is heading to or another, since it is not located in the town of the giving. Likewise, in the town of the giving, he may be given if his money is deferred, or owed by an absent person, an insolvent one or a defiant one: that does not prevent him from taking from the zakat, as the Hanafis stated explicitly.
References: Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/344), Tabyin al-Haqa'iq (1/298).
The second condition: that his journey not be an act of disobedience, a condition stated explicitly by the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis. He may be given if his journey is an obligatory act of obedience, such as the obligatory hajj or honoring one's parents; or a recommended one, such as visiting the scholars and the righteous; or a lawful journey, such as seeking a livelihood, trade, or earning, according to the Malikis and the Hanbalis, and according to the Shafi'is in the soundest view.
If his journey is an act of disobedience, such as setting out to kill someone or for forbidden trade, it is not permissible to give to him; for that would be aiding the disobedience, which is like committing it: the means to a thing has the same ruling as the thing. One does not aid disobedience to Allah with the wealth of the Muslims, unless he repents with sincere repentance: he is then given for the remainder of his journey, unless death is feared for him; he is then given even without repentance, for if he has disobeyed, we, by leaving him to die, are not disobeying. Some Malikis said: he is not given even if death is feared for him, for his deliverance is in his own hands, through repentance. Others said: the disobedience is examined: if he intends to kill someone or to violate a person's honor, he is not given except after repenting, even if death is feared for him.
If he travels for recreation and amusement, two well-known views exist among the Shafi'is: the school with them is that he is like the lawful traveler, hence two views, the sounder being that he is given; the second view: he is never given, for it is a kind of frivolity. If he set out on a journey of disobedience and then abandoned it along the way, intending to return home, he is then given from the zakat, for his journey is then no longer one of disobedience.
As for the Hanbalis, there are two views: he is given, for it is not an act of disobedience; or he is not given, for he has no need of this journey. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it seems stronger to me that it is not permissible to give for a journey to a land other than his own; if that were permitted to the traveler setting out from elsewhere, it would be permitted to the one who sets out from his own land. If this journey is for jihad, he takes from the share of the way of Allah; if it is the hajj, other needs are more important still; and if the giving is not permitted in these two cases, it is even less so for the others. The Law only prescribed the giving to him for the return to his land: it is a need that calls for it and without which he cannot manage; other motives cannot therefore be attached to it, for they are not of its kind; neither text nor analogy exists for them, and so their permissibility is not established.
References: Al-Majmu' (7/354), Al-Mughni (6/335).
The third condition: that he find no one to lend to him in the place where he is; this condition concerns only the man who has wealth in his town enabling him to repay the loan. It was laid down only by some Malikis, other scholars of the school having differed with them. It is stated in Ash-Sharh as-Saghir: unless the stranger finds a lender for what will bring him back; and the case is that he is rich in his town, so he is not given in that case. But Ibn al-'Arabi the Maliki, in Ahkam al-Qur'an, and al-Qurtubi in his tafsir, preferred that the traveler be given from the zakat even if he finds someone to lend to him. They said: he need not be beholden to the favor of anyone, having found the favor of Allah and His grace.
The Hanafis and the Shafi'is stated explicitly that he is not obliged to borrow, although the Hanafis hold it better for him without making it binding. Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is stated in Al-Fath: it is not lawful for him, that is, for the traveler, to take more than his need; it is preferable that he borrow if he is able, without it being required of him, since his inability to repay is possible; he is not obliged either to give as charity what remains in his hand when he has control over his wealth, like the poor man who has become self-sufficient and the mukatab who is unable; neither of the two, having money of the zakat, is obliged to give it as charity.
References: Ash-Sharh as-Saghir with Bilghat as-Salik (1/429), Ahkam al-Qur'an (2/958), Tafsir al-Qurtubi (8/187), Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/344), Tabyin al-Haqa'iq (1/298).
Imam an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if the traveler finds someone to lend him his sufficiency and has credit in his town, he is not obliged to borrow; the zakat may even be given to him. The jurists then differed over the traveler who has taken money from the zakat and then returned to his town with a surplus: must he give it back? The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold that he must. An-Nawawi said: our companions said: when the traveler returns with a surplus, it is recovered from him, whether he was frugal with it or not. It has been said: if he was frugal with it to the point that, had he not been, nothing would have remained, he returns only with what remains; but the first view is the position retained.
The difference with the fighter was set out in the previous chapter: nothing is recovered from the fighter if he was frugal, for what he takes is compensation for our need of him and for his campaigning, which he has done; the traveler takes for his need of us, a need that has now ceased. Our companions said: in the same way the mount that was purchased is recovered from him. This is the position. Ar-Rafi'i reported a view that nothing is recovered: a very weak and odd view.
Reference: Al-Majmu' (7/354).
Al-Bahuti (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if a surplus remains with the traveler, the fighter, the debt-ridden man or the mukatab, he returns it; the others may dispose of it as they wish, their established ownership being definitive. The Hanafis, however, hold that he is not obliged to return the surplus. Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is stated in Al-Fath: it is not lawful for him, that is, for the traveler, to take more than his need; it is preferable that he borrow if he is able, without it being required of him, since his inability to repay is possible; he is not obliged to give as charity what remains in his hand when he has control over his wealth, like the poor man who has become self-sufficient and the mukatab who is unable; neither of the two, having money of the zakat, is obliged to give it as charity.
References: ar-Rawd al-Murbi' (1/404), Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/344), Tabyin al-Haqa'iq (1/298).
The people of knowledge agreed that if only one of the eight categories exists, the zakat is given to them and suffices. They differed, however, when all eight categories are present: must all of them be covered, or may a single category be given and it suffice? The position retained is that covering them all is not obligatory: giving to one category alone suffices.
The Shafi'is, and Imam Ahmad according to one narration, hold that the shares must be equalized between the categories, with no category preferred over another, whether their needs and numbers coincide or not; the only exception is the collector, whose right is fixed at the wage of his work, for Allah made them equal. If the eight categories exist, each category receives one eighth; if five of them exist, each category receives one fifth, and so on: all those present must be covered, and it is not permitted to restrict oneself to some of them when all exist. If a category is absent, such as those whose hearts are to be reconciled, its share lapses and is returned to the rest.
It is recommended to include every category if possible; the minimum that suffices is giving to three persons of each category, for Allah referred to them in the plural, and the least of the plural is three. If he gives to two, he guarantees the share of the third; as for the amount of this guarantee, there are two views: the recommended measure is the third; the second, which is the correct one: the least fraction of the share, for that is what is obligatory, and he does not guarantee what exceeds it.
Imam al-Shafi'i said in Al-Umm: if the collector leaves the people of a category present where he divides it, knowing who they are, and gives their share to others, he guarantees it, for the share of those people is made explicit in the Book of Allah. Likewise, if the governor divides it and leaves the people of a share present, he guarantees as described. All this concerns other than the collector: that there be only one of them involves no disagreement; the traveler, however, is a matter of disagreement.
References: Al-Umm (2/69, ed. Ash-Sha'b), Sharh az-Zarkashi (1/373).
Equalizing between the individuals of a single category is not obligatory, whether one covers them all or restricts oneself to three of them or more, and whether their needs coincide or differ; it is nonetheless recommended to distribute according to their needs: if they are equal, one equalizes; if they differ, one gives preference in proportion to need, as a recommendation.
References: Al-Muhadhdhab (1/173), Al-Hawi al-Kabir (8/478), Al-Bayan (3/429-430), Al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhadhdhab (6/205-207).
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis in the school, hold that equalizing between the eight categories is not obligatory: one may give all of it to a single person, to the exclusion of the others. They argue this from the word of Allah:
"If you disclose the charities, that is good; but if you conceal them and give them to the poor, it is better for you"
Surah Al-Baqarah, 271
He made the exclusive favoring of the poor a good that is rewarded, which indicates the permissibility of doing so and of paying it within their right alone. And by His word:
"And those in whose wealth there is a recognized right, for the petitioner and the deprived"
Surah Al-Ma'arij, 24-25
This indicates the permissibility of favoring them exclusively. And by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to Mu'adh, when he sent him to Yemen:
Inform them that Allah has made obligatory upon them a charity in their wealth, taken from their rich and returned to their poor.Narrated by al-Bukhari (1331) and Muslim (19)
He announced that the payer is required to return all of it to the poor, who are but a single category, without mentioning any other; then money came to him, and he placed it in a second category besides the poor: those whose hearts are to be reconciled, namely al-Aqra' ibn Habis, 'Uyaynah ibn Hisn, Alqamah ibn 'Ulathah and Zayd al-Khayl; he divided among them the gold that Ali had sent him from Yemen, even though the charity is taken from the people of Yemen; then other money came, and he placed it in yet another category.
Moreover, Allah singled out the eight categories for mention just as He singled out the single category: since covering a whole category is not obligatory and it is permitted to restrict oneself to part of it, covering all the categories is likewise not obligatory, and one may restrict oneself to a part of them. Two reasonings follow: first, it is a charity from which one may favor some of the poor; one may therefore favor some of the categories, as is done with the expiations. Second, the one whose restriction to a part is permitted in the expiations, restriction to a part of him is permitted in the zakats, by analogy with some of the poor.
And if every category deserved a share assigned to it specifically, it would not be permitted, when some are absent, to return their share to those who are present; but their consensus on the permissibility of that, despite the absence of some, proves its permissibility when some are present. They said: the purpose sought is to fill a lack that not everyone can fill; there is no difference between its coming from a single category or from all the categories, just as there is none between its coming from part of a category or from the whole of it.
The lam of restriction in the word of Allah:
"The charities are only for the poor..."
Surah At-Tawbah, 60
serves to specify the recipient and the entitlement: the charities are due only to the poor, and so on; but the entitlement does not necessarily imply the actual giving.
References: Al-Hidaya (1/113), Al-'Inaya Sharh al-Hidaya (3/198), Sharh Fath al-Qadir (2/265), Al-Jawhara an-Nayyira (2/217-218), Al-Lubab (1/247), Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra (2/295), At-Taj wal-Iklil (2/352, ed. Dar al-Fikr), Mawahib al-Jalil (2/252, ed. Dar al-Fikr), Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil (2/220), Tahbir al-Mukhtasar (2/115), the commentary of as-Sawi (3/209), Al-Mughni (3/443-445), Sharh az-Zarkashi (1/373).
It is reported from Al-Bayan in the following terms: a man had two hundred dirhams in one purse and the like in another, and he doubted whether five dirhams of the zakat of these dirhams remained due from him: nothing is due from him, in contrast to the case where he would doubt, concerning the two hundred in one specific purse, whether he paid its zakat or not; for the default is that it remains due and must be paid out. He then said: the rule is that whenever something is incumbent on him and he doubts whether he paid it, its payment is required of him, for the liability is certainly engaged and is not discharged except by certain payment; and whenever he doubts whether something is incumbent on him or not, it is not required of him, for the default is innocence of the liability.
Reference: Al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya al-Kubra (1/155-156).
The case of one who doubts whether he paid all or part of the zakat: Ibn Nujaym reported an actual case, the gist of which is that a man doubted whether he had paid all the zakat due upon him, having paid it in scattered fashion without any record; a fatwa was issued to him requiring him to repay, since the preponderant assumption that he had paid a specific amount had not prevailed with him. This ruling is what the rules require, for the zakat is established with certainty in his liability and does not leave his responsibility on the basis of doubt. This is also the view of the Shafi'is. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami reported that some of the companions said to the man who declared: "Missed obligations whose number I do not recall are upon me": we send you back to the time of your puberty.
References: Ghamz 'Uyun al-Basa'ir (1/223, 2/55), Nuzhat an-Nawadhir (67, 199), al-Hamawi (1/215), Al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq Sharh Kanz ar-Raqa'iq (2/228), Al-Furuq by al-Qarafi (1/225), Al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya al-Kubra (1/156).
As for what you ascertain, from the time of your puberty, that you did perform, that stands; what you doubt about, you must make up. This is the apparent sense. As for the statement of al-Qaffal, that what he is certain he neglected is required of him, and not what he doubts, it is examined: for after the certainty of the neglect, he is addressed with all of it, and the default is non-payment, so he must make up what he doubts having paid. He then said: the same is said of fasting and the zakat: if he owns camels, cattle, sheep and cash and doubts whether the zakat of the camels and cattle, or of the whole, is due upon him, the whole is required of him.
Reference: Al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya al-Kubra (1/156).
The creditor may not remit the debt of his poor, insolvent debtor, who has nothing with which to settle it, and count it as part of his zakat. If he does so, it does not discharge him of the zakat according to the Hanafis, the Hanbalis and the Malikis, with the exception of Ashhab, which is the soundest view among the Shafi'is; it is also the position of Abu 'Ubayd. The reason for the prohibition: the zakat is a right of Allah, and it is not permissible for a man to spend it for his own benefit, for reviving his wealth, or for recovering his debt.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said, chapter: Muhanna said: I asked Abu Abdillah (Ahmad) about a man to whom another owes a debt secured by a pledge, the debtor being unable to settle it; this creditor has zakat on wealth and wishes to distribute it to the needy: he hands the debtor his pledge back and says to him: "The debt I have against you is remitted to you; I count it from the zakat of my wealth?" He said: "That does not discharge him." I said: so he gives him from the zakat of his wealth, and if the debtor then returns it to him as repayment out of his own money, does he take it? He said: "Yes." He said elsewhere: he was told: and if he gives it to him and then the debtor returns it to him? He said: "If it is a stratagem, it does not please me." He was told: and if the debtor borrows dirhams, settles the debt, and then the creditor returns them to him counting them from the zakat? He said: "If they thereby intend to revive his wealth, it is not permitted."
From his words it follows that giving the zakat to the debt-ridden man is permitted, whether one gives it outright or recovers one's right and then hands back to him what one recovered; but as soon as the giving is intended to revive one's wealth or to recover one's debt, it is not permitted; for the zakat is a right of Allah and may not be spent for one's own benefit, and the debt is not counted from the zakat before taking possession of it, for he is commanded to pay it and hand it over; and this is a remission, and Allah knows best.
Reference: Al-Mughni (4/106).
The Shafi'is in one view, and Ashhab among the Malikis, permit the procedure; for if he gave him his zakat and then took it back from him toward the debt, that would be permitted; so it is the same here. Imam an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if a man has a debt against an insolvent person and wishes to count it as his zakat, saying to him: "I have counted it as my zakat," there are two views in the Shafi'i school, the sounder being that it does not discharge him, the position of Abu Hanifa and Ahmad; for the zakat is in his liability and is not discharged except by taking possession. The second: it does discharge him, the position of al-Hasan al-Basri and 'Ata'; for if he gave it to him and then took it back toward the debt, that would be permitted; the same applies if he does not take it, as if he had dirhams on deposit and gave them as zakat: it discharges him, whether he takes them back or not. But if he gives the zakat on condition that it be returned to him toward the debt, the giving is not valid: the zakat does not lapse, by consensus in the school, and the debt is not validly settled by that, by consensus; if they intended it without a condition, it is permitted by consensus, the zakat lapses, and when he returns it to him toward the debt he is released.
Al-Baghawi said: if the debtor says: "Give me your zakat and I will settle your debt," and he does so, it discharges him of the zakat; the receiver becomes its owner, and the giver is not obliged to give it back to him toward the debt; if he gives it back, it discharges him.
References: Al-Majmu' of an-Nawawi (6/199), Rawdat at-Talibin (2/178-179), al-Munthur fi-l-Qawa'id of az-Zarkashi (1/396).
Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam said in Al-Amwal (1/533-534): "This is a position of which I know no one among the people of the athar or the people of opinion who practices it or holds it; Sufyan ibn Sa'id, as reported of him, disliked it and did not consider it discharging; I asked Abd al-Rahman, and he held Sufyan's view; I do not know, perhaps he reported it from Malik as well. To me it does not discharge the man who holds it, because of traits that combine. One of them: the sunna of the Messenger of Allah concerning the charity was contrary to this practice; he took it only from the substance of wealth, directly from the rich, and returned it to the poor; likewise the caliphs after him; and it has not reached us from any of them that he allowed anyone to count a debt from the zakat, although we know that people lent to one another in their time. The second: it is perished, non-existent wealth that has left its owner's hand in the manner of a loan and a debt; then he intends to transfer it, after its perishing, to another by mere intention: this is not permissible in people's transactions so long as that debt has not been received; how then could it be so between the servants and Allah? The third: I cannot be sure that he did not only intend to shield his wealth through this debt from which he has despaired, making it a shield for his wealth; and Allah accepts only what is purely for Him."
The stratagem held permissible among the Hanafis, when one has a debt against an insolvent person and wishes to count it from one's zakat, is to give one's poor creditor the zakat and then take it back toward the debt; it is stated in al-Ashbah: this is the most excellent of options. Ibn Abidin argued it on the ground that the giving becomes the means of clearing the creditor's liability. Another stratagem exists among the Hanafis: it is reported in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya that a man to whom a poor man owed money wished to give charity to his debt-ridden creditor and count it from the zakat of his wealth; yet it is known from the principles of our companions that neither the zakat of the cash nor that of another debt is paid by means of a debt; the stratagem consists in the owner's giving charity to the debt-ridden man in the amount of what he owes him, intending the zakat of his wealth, and handing it to him; when the debt-ridden man receives it and then returns it to the owner in settlement of the debt, it is permitted. It is mentioned in an-Nawadir that Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about this and answered: "This is better than giving it to someone else; our early shaykhs used this stratagem with their insolvent debtors and saw no harm in it." If the creditor fears that, if he gives the amount of the debt to the debt-ridden man, the latter will withhold repayment, he need not fear that: he can stretch out his hand and take it back, having obtained the equivalent of his right; if the debt-ridden man resists him, the matter is brought before the judge, who finds him in possession of the funds and orders him to settle the debt. Another stratagem: the creditor says to the debtor from the outset: "Appoint one of my servants to receive my zakat on your behalf, then appoint him to settle your debt"; when the agent receives it, what is received becomes the property of his principal, the creditor, and the agent for the reception is an agent for settling his principal's debt by virtue of his mandate: he settles the debt from this money.
References: Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (2/271), al-Ashbah wal-Naza'ir of Ibn Nujaym (407), al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya (1/263-264, 6/391-392).
The Malikis and the Hanbalis stated explicitly that it is permitted, unless it is a stratagem. al-Hattab said: the place of permissibility is where there is no collusion; otherwise it is prohibited by consensus. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he intends to revive his wealth, it is not permitted; he also said: if it is a stratagem, it does not please me. Al-Qadi and others said: the stratagem consists in giving it to him on condition that he return it toward the debt: it does not discharge him; for one of the conditions of the giving is a valid transfer of ownership: once the return is made a condition, that condition is not fulfilled; and because the zakat is a right of Allah that may not be spent for one's own benefit. If the debt-ridden man returns of his own accord what he received, in settlement of the debt, without any condition or collusion, the owner may count it toward his debt; for it is a renewed cause, like inheritance and gift.
References: Jawahir al-Iklil (1/138, ed. Dar al-Baz); see also the commentary of Ad-Dasuqi (1/494), al-Munthur (3/158), al-Insaf (3/250), al-Furu' (2/469), al-Mubdi' (2/432), Kashshaf al-Qina' (2/288), Matalib Uli an-Nuha (2/154), Al-Mughni with Ash-Sharh al-Kabir (3/428-429).
The Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about remitting the debt of an insolvent person: is it permissible to count it from the zakat? He answered: remitting the debt of an insolvent person does not discharge the zakat of cash, without any dispute. But if he has a debt against someone who deserves the zakat, is it permissible for him to remit to him the amount of the zakat of that debt, so that it constitutes the zakat of that debt? The scholars have two views in the school of Ahmad and others: the more apparent of the two is permissibility, for the zakat is founded on generosity; here he has taken out from what he owns, in contrast to the case where his wealth is cash and he takes out a claim: what he takes out is less than what he owns, which is like taking out the bad from the good, and that is not permitted, according to the word of Allah:
"And do not aim at the bad of it to spend"
Surah Al-Baqarah, 267
For this reason the payer must take out of the like of his wealth and not of what is inferior to it: if he owns fruit and wheat of good quality, he does not take out what is inferior to them.
Reference: Majmu' al-Fatawa (25/84).
Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if the owner releases his debt-ridden creditor with the intention of the zakat, it does not discharge him according to the sound position of the school, stated explicitly by him and by most of the companions, most of them ruling definitively, whether what is taken out is cash or a claim. al-Azji chose in an-Nihaya the permissibility, as mentioned before; it is an interpretation of possibility, a release of the author of al-Furu', resting on the question of whether there is a transfer of ownership. It has been said: he is discharged if he remits the amount of the zakat of that debt and that constitutes the zakat of that debt; a view reported by the shaykh Taqi ad-Din, who also chose it, for the zakat is generosity.
Reference: al-Insaf (3/251).
Whoever neglects the zakat incumbent upon him until he dies, while able to pay it and without bequeathing its payment, is a sinner by consensus of the people of knowledge. The jurists differed: does the zakat lapse in this case or not? The majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, together with Ishaq, Abu Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir, and by a transmission from 'Ata', al-Hasan and az-Zuhri, hold that one who dies with an unpaid zakat does not have it lapse by his death, as with the other financial rights of Allah, among them the hajj and the expiations: it is guaranteed, must be paid from his wealth whether he bequeathed it or not, and is taken from all of his wealth; for it is a debt owed to Allah and treated as such, and it does not compete with the bequests for the third, the third coming only after the debt. They argued that it is an obligatory right over wealth, which does not lapse at death, like the debt of a human being.
References: the commentary of Ad-Dasuqi on Ash-Sharh al-Kabir (4/441), Bidayat al-Mujtahid (1/344), al-Hawi al-Kabir (3/367-368), Al-Majmu' (5/301-302, 6/219), Sharh al-Minhaj (2/41), Al-Mughni with Ash-Sharh al-Kabir (3/457), Kashshaf al-Qina' (2/182), ar-Rawd al-Murbi' (1/362).
The sound position among the Shafi'is is that if the debt of Allah is combined with the debt of a human being, the debt of Allah is given precedence, based on the hadith:
The debt of Allah is more worthy of being repaid.Narrated by al-Bukhari (1852) and Muslim (1148)
Al-Bukhari also reported (6959), from Ibn Abbas, that he said: Sa'd ibn Ubadah al-Ansari asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about a vow incumbent upon his mother, who died before fulfilling it; the Messenger of Allah said: "Fulfill it on her behalf." Al-Muhallab said: this is proof that the zakat does not lapse either by stratagem or by death; since the vow does not lapse by death, the zakat, which is even stronger, is all the more incumbent. It has been said: the debt of the human being is given precedence; it has been said: the two are equal.
References: al-Hawi al-Kabir (3/367-368), Al-Majmu' (5/301-302, 6/219), Sharh al-Minhaj (2/41); al-Muhallab, cited in Fath al-Bari (12/349).
Abu Hanifa, ath-Thawri, an-Nakha'i and ash-Sha'bi hold that the zakat lapses at death, in the sense that it is not obligatory upon the estate: if he bequeathed its payment, it is a bequest competing with the other bequests for the third; if he did not bequeath it, it lapses; for it is an act of worship whose condition is intention, and it lapses by the death of the one obligated, like the prayer and the fasting; if the heirs pay it, it is a voluntary charity from them. An exception to this among the Hanafis, in the apparent narration, is the tithe of the produce of the land: it is taken from the estate of the deceased, for with them it is in the nature of a land maintenance charge; according to one narration, it lapses as well.
References: Bada'i' as-Sana'i' (7/333), Tabyin al-Haqa'iq (6/230), al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq (2/227), Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (6/760, 8/471).
Among the Malikis, the neglected zakat is taken from the capital of the estate if it is established that he did not pay it. If that rests only on his acknowledgment during his final illness, with attestation that it remains in his liability, and he bequeathed its payment, it is taken from the third; otherwise it is not taken at all. As for the zakat of the year of his death, if he acknowledged its falling due and bequeathed its payment, it is taken from the capital. Ad-Dasuqi says in his commentary on Ash-Sharh al-Kabir that the zakat of cash in the year of death involves four cases:
References: the commentary of Ad-Dasuqi on Ash-Sharh al-Kabir (4/441), Bada'i' as-Sana'i' (7/333), Tabyin al-Haqa'iq (6/230), al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq (2/227), Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (6/760, 8/471), al-Hawi al-Kabir (3/367-368), Al-Majmu' (5/301-302, 6/219), Sharh al-Minhaj (2/41), Al-Mughni with Ash-Sharh al-Kabir (3/457), Kashshaf al-Qina' (2/182), ar-Rawd al-Murbi' (1/362), Bidayat al-Mujtahid (1/344).
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Abu 'Asim al-'Abadi said in az-Ziyadat: if a zakat became established upon him and he then fell ill with no money at hand, it behooves him to intend to pay the zakat if he is able, and to borrow. Shadhan ibn Ibrahim said: he borrows, for the debt of Allah is more worthy of being repaid; if he borrows, pays the zakat, and intends repayment as soon as he is able, he is excused by consensus.
Reference: Al-Majmu' of an-Nawawi (6/474).