Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > To whom not to give zakat > The wife, taxes, transfer and cash value
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
This second part on those to whom zakat may not be given covers four questions: a wife paying her zakat to her husband, counting taxes (maks) and similar levies toward zakat, transferring zakat from one town to another, and paying the monetary value instead of the owed item. For each question the positions of the schools are reported faithfully, with their evidence and classical references. The disagreements presented are those of the jurists themselves, and the choice adopted by each school is indicated wherever the source mentions it.
Al-Kasani, may Allah have mercy on him, stated that a man may not pay zakat to his wife, and this by consensus ("Bada'i al-Sana'i", 2/505). The Hanafis justify the prohibition by the fact that the benefits between the two spouses are shared ("Tuhfat al-Fuqaha", 1/303; "al-Hidaya", 1/113; "Hashiyat Ibn Abidin", 2/62; "Fath al-Qadir", 2/22).
The point of the prohibition is giving her zakat so that she spends it on herself. If he instead gives her an amount she will pay toward her debt or spend on other deserving people, there is no harm, as the Malikis explicitly stated. A close position is that of the Shafi'is: what is forbidden is giving her from the share of the poor and the needy, while from another share for which she herself qualifies there is no harm. This is also what can be understood from the words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him ("Majmu' al-Fatawa", 25/90, 92; "al-Bada'i", 2/505; "Hashiyat Ibn Abidin", 2/62; "Fath al-Qadir", 2/22; "Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" by Ibn Battal, 3/492; "al-Dasuqi", 1/499; "al-Majmu'", 7/374; "al-Mughni", 3/424; "al-Dhakhira", 3/142).
A wife paying her zakat to her husband. The jurists differed over whether a wife may pay her zakat to her poor or needy husband: is it allowed or not?
Imam Abu Hanifa, and Imam Ahmad in one narration (the sound one in the madhhab), held that a wife may not pay the zakat of her wealth to her husband, first because he is one of the two spouses: paying zakat to him is therefore no more permitted than paying it to the other. Added to this is the benefit she draws from it: if he is unable to spend on her, receiving zakat relieves him of that obligatory duty; if he is not unable but is thereby eased, the spending of the wealthy becomes obligatory on him. She benefits from the payment in either case, hence the prohibition.
A third reason is given: the penalty for theft is not applied to a husband for his wife's property, and his testimony in her favor is not valid.
Imam al-Shafi'i, Ahmad in the second narration, and the two companions of Abu Hanifa (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad) allowed a woman to pay her zakat to her husband. The basis is the hadith of 'Amr ibn al-Harith reporting from Zaynab, the wife of Abdallah:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Give in charity, O assembly of women, even from your jewelry." She said: I returned to Abdallah and said: you are a man of limited means (an allusion to poverty), and the Messenger of Allah has commanded us to give charity; go and ask him, and if this suffices for me, otherwise I will give it to someone other than you. She said: Abdallah told me: rather, you go to him. She said: I went, and there was a woman of the Ansar at the door of the Messenger of Allah, with the same need as mine. She said: such awe surrounded the Messenger of Allah that Bilal came out to us, and we said to him: go to the Messenger of Allah and tell him that two women are at his door asking whether charity suffices for them toward their husbands and the orphans in their homes, and do not tell him who we are. She said: Bilal went in and asked, and the Messenger of Allah said: "Who are they?" He said: a woman of the Ansar and Zaynab. The Messenger of Allah asked: "Which of the two Zaynabs?" He said: the wife of Abdallah. The Messenger of Allah said: "They have two rewards: the reward of kinship and the reward of charity."
Reported by Ahmad, al-Bukhari and Muslim; al-Bukhari's wording is: "Does it suffice me to spend on my husband and on orphans in my care?" (al-Bukhari 1462, Muslim 1000)
Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, explained the basis of the permission: the husband's maintenance is not obligatory upon the wife, so there is no reason to forbid paying zakat to him as with a stranger, unlike the wife whose maintenance is obligatory on the husband. The default is the permissibility of paying, since the husband falls under the general categories named for zakat; there is no text of prohibition and no consensus, and the analogy with those prohibited is invalid because of the clear difference between the two cases. The permissibility of paying therefore stands ("al-Mughni", 3/425; "Nayl al-Awtar", 4/188).
The rational proof of the difference between husband and wife was given by Abu Ubayd: a man is compelled to maintain his wife even if she is wealthy, while she is not compelled to maintain him even if he is destitute. What difference is greater than this one? ("al-Amwal", p. 588).
As for the Malikis, Imam Malik said: a woman does not give her husband from her zakat. His companions differed over these words: some understood them as a denial of sufficiency, while others affirmed sufficiency with dislike ("al-Dhakhira", 3/141; "al-Taj wa-l-Iklil", 2/354; "al-Mudawwana", 1/298; "Bada'i al-Sana'i", 2/505; "al-Ishraf", 1/192; "al-Dasuqi", 1/499; "al-Majmu'", 7/374; "Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama" by al-Tahawi, 1/480; "Sharh Ibn Battal", 3/492; "al-Ifsah", 1/374; "al-Insaf", 3/253).
The author adds: Ibn Hubayra reported from Imam Malik these words: if the husband uses what she gives him to meet her maintenance, it is not allowed; if he spends it on others or something similar, it is allowed ("al-Ifsah", 1/374). Al-Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, reported this view or something close from Ashhab, noting the scholars' disagreement over a woman giving her zakat to her husband, and that Ibn Habib used to draw on what she gives him for her upkeep ("Tafsir al-Qurtubi", 8/190).
Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, said: it is not allowed. His two companions disagreed and affirmed the permission, which is the more correct view, given what is established from Zaynab, the wife of Abdallah, who came to the Messenger of Allah and said: "I wish to give charity to my husband; does it suffice for me?" He replied: "Yes, you will have two rewards: the reward of charity and the reward of kinship." Unrestricted charity here is zakat; and since the husband has no maintenance right over her, he stands in the position of a stranger.
Abu Hanifa's argument is that the benefits of the spouses are shared between them, to the point that the testimony of one for the other is not accepted; the hadith is therefore interpreted as referring to voluntary charity. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr and Ashhab, for their part, allowed the payment on condition that the husband does not spend it on her for what he owes her: what he takes from her he spends on his own food and clothing, and he maintains her from his own wealth ("Tafsir al-Qurtubi", 8/190).
The jurists as a whole established that a person may not count the taxes or dues he pays toward the zakat of his wealth. They are indeed taken under a name other than zakat, and the ruler spends them on purposes other than the eight categories who are entitled to it. Even if he forms the intention, it does not suffice him, and the zakat of his wealth remains due.
Imam Ibn Abidin, may Allah have mercy on him, reports from the "Bazzaziyya": if one intends the tax to be zakat, the correct view is that it does not stand in place of zakat, as Imam al-Sarakhsi said. He indicated by "the correct view" the opinion that if, at the time of payment, one intends charity to the tax collectors, it is allowed, because they are poor in view of the liabilities upon them ("Hashiyat Ibn Abidin", 2/39).
Among the Malikis, Shaykh Aliish issued a fatwa concerning one who owns the nisab in livestock on which the ruler imposes a known sum of money each year, taken under a name other than zakat: he may not intend it as zakat, and even if he intends it, it does not fall away from him. He noted that al-Nasir al-Laqqani and al-Hattab issued the same fatwa ("Fatawa Aliish", 1/139, 140). Al-Mawwaq said: if an oppressor takes it under a name other than zakat, it does not suffice ("al-Taj wa-l-Iklil", 2/360).
Among the Shafi'is, al-Nawawi writes in "al-Majmu'": the companions (of the school) agreed that the kharaj taken unjustly does not stand in place of the 'ushr. If the sultan takes it as a substitute for the 'ushr, it is like taking the monetary value; whether it discharges the obligation is disputed, and the correct view is that it does. On this basis, if the amount falls short of the 'ushr, he pays the remainder ("al-Majmu'", 5/453; "Rawdat al-Talibin", 2/94).
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami issued a fatwa that what is taken from merchants as a tax does not count as zakat even with the intention of zakat, because the imam did not take it under the name of zakat ("al-Zawajir", 1/149; "al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya al-Kubra", 2/48; "I'anat al-Talibin", 2/164). He says in "I'anat al-Talibin": by this one knows that the tax does not dispense with zakat unless the imam or his deputy takes it as a substitute for it, by valid ijtihad or valid taqlid, and not unconditionally, contrary to those who erred on the question ("I'anat al-Talibin", 2/164).
Among the Hanbalis there are two narrations concerning what the collector takes above his right while the owner intends it as zakat for the coming year: one, it suffices; the other, it does not ("Matalib Uli al-Nuha", 2/133; "al-Insaf", 3/211, 212).
Ibn Muflih reports in "al-Furu'" (2/436): if the collector takes above his right, the excess counts toward a second year. Ahmad said that what is gifted to the collector from the zakat also counts, while according to him it is not counted; several transmitted this unconditional statement. The shaykh combined the two narrations: if the owner intended to advance the zakat, the excess counts, otherwise not.
The author of the "Muharrar" interpreted the narration of permission to mean that the collector took the excess with the intention of zakat if he intended advancement; if he knew it was not due to him and took it anyway, it is not counted on the more correct view, because he took it by force. He adds: we have a narration that one from whom more than his due is taken as kharaj may count it from the 'ushr or from another kharaj, and this is the more fitting.
In the fatawa of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, he was asked: does what the governors impose on him as levies on the roads suffice a man in place of his zakat, or not? He answered: what the governors take under a name other than zakat is not counted among zakat ("Majmu' al-Fatawa", 25/93; see "Tafsir al-Manar" by Shaykh Rashid Rida, 7/579).
It is also transmitted from Harb, concerning a land under treaty from which the sultan takes half of the produce though he is not entitled to it: he was asked whether the owner should then pay zakat on what remains in his hands, and he replied that what the sultan took suffices as zakat, provided the owner intends it.
Ibn Aqil said: if the levy is taken above the estimate, does the excess count as zakat? There are two narrations; the qadi held that the excess counts according to the owner's intention at the time of taking, otherwise not. Our shaykh said: what was taken under the name of zakat, even above the owed amount, without any interpretive distortion, counts, otherwise not. In "al-Ri'aya": what is taken in a lawful manner counts, and otherwise not; likewise Ibn Tamim, at the end of the section on a dhimmi buying land subject to the 'ushr, adopted the view that it is not counted.
A decision of the Islamic Research Academy (Majma' al-Buhuth al-Islamiyya), taken at its second conference in 1385 AH (1965) on zakat and taxation, established that taxes levied for the interest of the state do not dispense with paying the obligatory zakat.
In commentary: at its first session in 1383 AH (1964), the Academy ruled that the authorities may impose on private wealth the taxes needed to secure the public interest, and that lawful wealth which has discharged its legitimate dues may, if the public interest requires part of it, be taken from its owner in return for its value on the day of taking. Assessing the public interest and its requirements is the prerogative of the authorities, and Muslims must offer them sincere counsel if they consider their assessment otherwise than right. The second decision followed: taxes do not dispense with zakat.
The difference between the two is clear and plain. Zakat is an act of worship that requires intention, prescribed by Allah, exalted be He, in His noble Book and explained by His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), with its conditions concerning the type of wealth, the nisab, the amount and its eight categories, beyond which it is not valid to pay zakat; all of this is fixed and does not change with time or place, like all other acts of worship. Taxation, on the other hand, differs from all of this, and many taxes of our era may well not be sanctioned by Islam (after "Mawsu'at al-Qadaya al-Fiqhiyya al-Mu'asira wa-l-Iqtisad al-Islami" by Dr Ali al-Salus, may Allah preserve him, p. 649).
Shaykh Shaltut, former Grand Imam of al-Azhar, was asked about counting taxes as zakat. His answer was apt: he explained the reality of zakat in a luminous way, showing that it is not a tax but, before anything else, a monetary act of worship. It is true that it agrees to some extent with the statutory tax, but it differs from it in many ways: in the source of legislation, in the basis of the obligation, in aims and purposes, in rates and amounts, and in the channels of spending.
He continued: "Since zakat comes from the ordinance of Allah, exalted be He, and is a faith-based obligation whose payment is due whether the need exists or not, it stands as a permanent spring for the poor and the needy, whom no nation or people lack. Taxes, by contrast, come from the ordinance of the ruler according to need. It is then evident that one does not dispense with the other: they are two different rights in their legislative source, their purpose, their amount, their stability and their permanence. Taxes must therefore be paid, and they are like a debt burdening the wealth: if the remainder reaches the nisab of zakat and its condition is fulfilled, that is, freedom from essential needs, and a lunar year elapses, zakat becomes due on that wealth as a debt. And if people feel some burden in some of the taxes imposed on them, the consequence must not fall on the poor man deprived of the right that Allah, exalted be He, established for him; the way forward is rather to call the government to economy in its expenditures and to hold it accountable for what it collects and spends" (see "al-Fatawa", p. 166, 118).
The jurists agreed on the permissibility of transferring zakat from one town to another when the first overflows and its people are no longer in need of it, whether because of the abundance of zakat wealth, the absence of the eligible categories or their small number; they even said it becomes obligatory. They differed, however, over transferring it from one town to another in the absence of such self-sufficiency.
The Hanafis hold that transferring zakat from one town to another is disliked as a matter of light disapproval (makruh tanziha), except in the following cases:
In all these cases the transfer is not disliked ("al-Durr al-Mukhtar with the hashiya of Ibn Abidin", 2/68-69; "Fath al-Qadir", 2/28; "al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya", 1/190).
The Malikis say: the zakat must be distributed in the place where the obligation arose or near it, that is, at less than the qasr distance (the distance at which prayer may be shortened), for this radius has the ruling of the place of obligation.
If there is no eligible person at the place of obligation or nearby, the zakat must be transferred in its entirety to a place that has eligible people, even at the qasr distance. If there are, distribution at the place of obligation or nearby is fixed. It is not permitted to transfer the zakat beyond the qasr distance unless the recipients of the transfer are more destitute (needier and poorer); it then becomes obligatory to transfer the greater part to them. If he transfers all of it or distributes all of it in the place of obligation, the zakat is discharged but he is sinful.
If he transfers it to someone other than the most destitute, two situations arise. The first: transferring it to one equal in need to those of the place of obligation; this is not allowed, but the zakat is discharged, meaning he is not required to pay it again. The second: transferring it to one in lesser need; here there are two views: the one Khalil established in his "Mukhtasar", that it is not discharged, and the second, transmitted by Ibn Rushd and the "Kafi", that it is, because it has not left its categories ("Hashiyat al-Dasuqi", 1/500, 502; "al-Fawakih al-Dawani", 1/346).
The Shafi'is hold that it is not permitted to transfer zakat from one town to another; rather it should be distributed in the town of the wealth, and if he transfers it to another town while eligible people exist, it is forbidden to him. Does such a transfer suffice? Two views are held.
According to the first, it does not suffice, for the zakat is a right fixed for the categories of the town: if he diverts it from them to others, he is not discharged, like one who bequeaths his wealth to the categories of the town. According to the second, it suffices, for the recipients belong to the people of the charities and resemble the categories of the town where the wealth is. The correct view with them is that there is no difference between transferring at the qasr distance or less ("al-Majmu'", 7/362-363; "Mughni al-Muhtaj", 3/118; "Nihayat al-Muhtaj", 6/167; "Hashiyat Qalyubi", 2/203).
The Hanbalis hold, as the madhhab, that it is not permitted to transfer zakat to a land reached at the qasr distance; rather it is forbidden, whether the transfer is to a relative or out of pressing need. According to another report from Imam Ahmad, it is disliked without being forbidden. It is also reported from him that it is permitted to transfer it to the frontier posts (thughur); the qadi justified this by the fact that the fighter's guard duty at the frontier may be long and he cannot leave it.
In "al-Insaf" it is said: according to him, transferring it to the frontier or elsewhere is allowed when need predominates. In "al-Fa'iq" it is said: it may be transferred for a weighty interest, such as a relative or a needy person; this is the chosen view, adopted by Shaykh Taqi al-Din, who limited it to a two days' journey, adding that the restriction of the prohibition on transfer to the qasr distance has no religious evidence. Al-Ajurri adopted the permissibility of transferring it to relatives.
The sound view with them is that transferring it to less than the qasr distance is allowed, and this is the madhhab. On the view that transfer is forbidden, does it suffice? Two narrations: one, it suffices, and this is the madhhab; the qadi said the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words implies this; the second, it does not suffice, adopted by al-Khiraqi, Ibn Hamid and the qadi ("al-Insaf", 3/200, 202; "al-Furu'", 2/425; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/264).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about one who owes zakat and has relatives in a land reached at the qasr distance who are deserving of charity: may he pay it to them, or not? He answered: if they are needy, deserving of zakat, and their sufficiency has not been secured from another source, he gives them from the zakat, even if they are in a distant land; and Allah knows best ("Majmu' al-Fatawa", 25/85).
As for paying the value: when a sheep from his flock, a she-camel from his camels, an irdabb of his wheat or a qintar of his fruit is due from the owner, must he necessarily discharge these things in kind, or does he choose between them and paying their value in money? And if he pays the value, is he discharged and is his zakat valid?
The jurists took several positions on this question: some forbid it, some allow it without dislike, some allow it with dislike, and some allow it in some cases but not others.
Among the Shafi'is, al-Nawawi says: our madhhab is that paying the value is not allowed in any of the zakats ("al-Majmu'", 5/384; "al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/179). The Hanafis stand opposed to them: they allow paying the value in every case ("al-Bahr al-Ra'iq", 2/238; "al-Durr al-Mukhtar", 2/285; "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq", 1/271).
Among the Malikis and the Hanbalis there are various narrations and views.
The Maliki books, notably the "Hashiyat al-Dasuqi", state that paying the value does not suffice. Al-Dasuqi says the author (Ibn al-Hajib) followed Ibn Bashir on this; but he was objected to in the "Tawdih" that this contradicts the "Mudawwana". The well-known text on paying the value is that it is disliked (makruh) without being forbidden ("Hashiyat al-Dasuqi", 1/502; "Minh al-Jalil", 2/97; "Balghat al-Salik", 1/433).
Al-Baji said: the apparent meaning of the "Mudawwana" and other works is that this falls under buying charity, and the well-known view on the question is that it is disliked without being forbidden. Abu Ali al-Mannaawi said: their apparent words make what is in the "Tawdih" and in Ibn Abd al-Salam the preferred view; Ibn Rushd's choice supports this, as he said that sufficiency is the most apparent of views, and Ibn Yunus endorsed it as well.
It is said in the "Mudawwana": I heard Malik say, concerning a man who coerced people, as a collector, into giving him dirhams for the charity due from them: I hope it suffices for them. The shaykhs commented: because he is a governor, and the judgment of a governor removes the dispute.
Among the Hanbalis, it is stated in "al-Mughni" that the apparent meaning of Ahmad's madhhab is that paying the value does not suffice in any zakat, neither in the zakat of breaking the fast nor in the zakat of wealth, because it contradicts the Sunna. It is also narrated from Ahmad that it is permitted for everything except the zakat of breaking the fast. Abu Dawud said: Ahmad was asked about a man who sold the fruit of his palm trees: its tenth is due from the seller. He was told: does he pay dates or their price? He said: if he wishes he pays dates, and if he wishes he pays the price. This is evidence for the permissibility of paying the value.
As for the zakat of breaking the fast (zakat al-fitr), Ahmad was strict about it and did not allow paying the value. Abu Dawud said: I heard Ahmad being asked: I pay dirhams (meaning, for the zakat al-fitr)? He said: I fear it does not suffice, against the Sunna of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ("al-Mughni with al-Sharh al-Kabir", 4/43; "al-Ifsah", 1/354).
The encyclopedia notes that this question will be treated in full in the chapter on paying the value for zakat al-fitr.