Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > General rules of zakat > The rules of zakat
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
The sheets of the chapter finally describe the fate of the one who refuses zakat: the rational frame of the amounts, the punishments announced in the hereafter and in this world, collection by force, fighting the resisters, the debate over half the wealth, evasion stratagems and the fate of rights already due in case of apostasy. These general rules complement the published sections on the withholder.
Shah Wali Allah explains why the Law fixes precise amounts: without a measure, the spendthrift would give too little and the greedy would demand too much. The burden must be neither so light that miserliness finds nothing to blame, nor so heavy that payment becomes unbearable; the annual due date must be neither so short that the cycle repeats without profit, nor so long that the needy and the guardians wait in anguish. The Lawgiver finally adopted the manner of collection usual among just kings towards their subjects, the custom of Arabs and Persians: a familiar obligation weighs less and meets better obedience, as mercy towards the people (Hujjat Allah al-Baligha 1/497-499).
The threat targets the hereafter first, with the plates of fire reserved for the hoarder. The sheets also recall a punishment of this world left to the course of events:
A people never withhold zakat without Allah trying them with years of famine.
narrated by at-Tabarani in al-Awsat and by al-Hakim (2/136), judged authentic by al-Albani (as-Sahihah 107)
They did not withhold the zakat of their wealth without the rain being withheld from them from the sky, and were it not for the beasts they would not be rained upon.
narrated by Ibn Majah (4019), judged good
Whoever refuses zakat while acknowledging its obligation is fought if he resists by arms, but he is not declared out of Islam: if he dies in that fighting, the Muslims inherit from him and pray over him. A narration of Ahmad, on the contrary, declares him out of Islam, deprived of inheritance and of the funeral prayer, relying on the answer of Abu Bakr to the besieged who came offering payment: "I do not accept it until you testify that our dead are in paradise and yours in the fire" (narrated by al-Khilal in as-Sunnah 477). Whoever denies the obligation is treated according to his background: raised in a remote region or recently converted, he is informed and not declared out of Islam, for he is excused; raised in the lands of Islam among the people of knowledge, he becomes an apostate and falls under the rulings of apostasy, for he has denied a truth of the religion known by necessity (al-Majmu' 6/468-469; al-Mughni 3/336-341). The companions agreed on fighting the resisters: an-Nawawi derives it from the account of Abu Bakr, Ibn Abd al-Barr compares it to the fighting of the apostates quoting their words: "we did not leave our religion, we grew stingy over our wealth" (at-Tamyid 21/282), and Ibn Taymiyya specifies that they were fought although they prayed and fasted (Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/419).
A hadith judged good reports about camels:
Whoever gives it willingly will have its reward, and whoever refuses it, we take it together with half of his wealth, a firm decree of our Lord; the family of Muhammad has no share in it.
narrated by Abu Dawud (1573), judged good
Ash-Shafi'i in his old path, Ahmad in one narration, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, then Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim retain the taking of half as a penalty. Others declare it abrogated, like ash-Shafi'i in his new path who admits only the zakat itself; an-Nawawi recalls the agreement of the Shafi'ites on the weakness of the hadith and criticizes the appeal to abrogation: no date establishes it, and the right path is the weakness of the transmission. Abu Hatim ar-Razi says of its transmitter Bahz ibn Hakim that he "writes hadith but no proof is built upon him", and al-Basti adds that he commits many errors, while Ibn al-Madini and Ahmad judge him authentic and hold that the only objection against him rests on this very report, a vicious circle according to Ibn al-Qayyim. The majority of the schools retains that only the zakat is taken from the withholder, relying on a hadith judged weak: "there is no right in wealth besides zakat" (narrated by Ibn Majah 1789), and on the silence of the companions after the collections by force (Hashiyat Ibn al-Qayyim on Sunan Abi Dawud 4/318-320; al-Majmu' 5/301).
The jurists examine the one who sells his livestock before the due date for dirhams, who swaps his nisab for another species to break the year, who destroys part of his capital, who gifts his wealth as the due date approaches, or who gives a dirham before the term to fall under the nisab. For the Malikites, the Hanbalites of the madhab, al-Awza'i, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd and al-Bukhari, such a maneuver near the due date is unlawful and the zakat remains due: the punishment of the garden owners who tried to forestall the poor to deny them their share proves it, Allah striking them with a decree contrary to their intent; three conditions tighten the ruling: the maneuver must target the immediate approach of the due date, be intentional, and not consist in a real spending for a need (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 1/505-506; al-Mughni 2/285). For the Hanafites, the Shafi'ites of the madhab and the Zahiris, free disposal before the due date removes the zakat, the act remaining disliked according to the school and a sin of intention according to the Zahiris; Ibn Hajar al-Haytami specifies that this validity holds only outwardly, the zakat remaining due between the believer and his Lord (al-Fatawa al-Kubra 4/78; al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 2/236-237). The Hanafites cite qadi Abu Yusuf who gifted his wealth to his wife at the end of the year then had it returned; asked about the method, Abu Hanifa said: "that is his fiqh", while judging it disliked with Muhammad (Ibn Abidin 2/380).
A report carried by Ibn al-Arabi illustrates the spirit of the debate: the chief qadi ad-Damghani, owner of tens of thousands, gifted his capital to his sons at every due date; the sons carried it back to him saying that no desire held them to it as long as he lived, and the wealth traveled back and forth, for changing the owner to dodge zakat is a grave reproach (narrated by al-Qurtubi in his tafsir 9/236, from Ibn al-Arabi).
If zakat was already obligatory on a Muslim who then apostatizes, the Shafi'ites and the Hanbalites maintain it: a right whose obligation has been established does not lapse through apostasy, like the fine and the debt, and the authority levies it on his wealth as on that of the recalcitrant Muslim. The Hanafites cancel it, for zakat requires an intention meaningless from a disbeliever. As for the one who apostatizes on the eve of the completion of the year over a nisab, the obligation does not stand according to the majority of Hanafites, Hanbalites and Shafi'ites, Islam being a condition that must cover the whole year; if he returns to Islam before the due date, a new year restarts. The Shafi'ites retain a third path: his ownership remains suspended, the obligation stands if he returns to Islam, and lapses if his ownership is declared extinguished (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 2/384-385; al-Majmu' 6/458-459).
The frame is clear: zakat is taken by force from the resister, fighting targets only armed resistance, extra penalties remain debated, and evasion stratagems escape the debt only outwardly in the view of most jurists. The believer gains a simple rule from it: honoring the due date is better than bargaining with one's own conscience.