Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > To whom not to give zakat > The forbidden: the Prophet's family, the rich, sinners and relatives
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
Zakat is not meant for everyone in need: Islamic law bars certain families, certain behaviors and certain beliefs from benefiting from it. The following sheets set out, school by school, the status of the Prophet's family (peace and blessings be upon him), of the sinner and the innovator, of parents and children, of more distant relatives, and of the wife. Every position rests on the Quran, the authentic Sunnah and the classic references of fiqh, with their exact citations.
The scholars agreed that the obligatory sadaqah is unlawful for Banu Hashim (Rahmat al-ummah fi ikhtilaf al-a'immah, 85). Ibn Qudamah wrote: "We know of no disagreement over the fact that the obligatory sadaqah is not lawful for Banu Hashim" (al-Mughni, 3/431).
The wisdom behind this prohibition is as follows: had the sadaqah been lawful to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and had he taken it, the people would have found a way to say: "You only call us to this in order to take our wealth and give it to your own family, not to call us to the path of guidance." He was therefore commanded to take it from the rich of every tribe and return it among their poor, so that all would know he called them only to their own interest, taking no recompense from them. So were the messengers before him sent: Nuh declared it when his people denied him, Hud when 'Aad denied him, and Salih when Thamud denied him.
"And I ask of you no wage for this"
Surah Ash-Shu'ara, 145
The prophets asked their reward only from Allah, the Most High. Al-Muhallab adds that the sadaqah was forbidden to the Prophet and his family because it is "the impurities of the people"; because sadaqah involves abasement and lowliness; and because the prophets and their families are exempt from humiliation, weakness and submission to any but Allah (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Battal, 3/541).
The jurists supported this rule with the Sunnah. Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that al-Hasan ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) took a date from the dates of the sadaqah and put it in his mouth. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) cried "Kikh, kikh", a word used to check and rebuke a child, also said to express contempt, as though ordering him to spit it out (an-Nihayah fi gharib al-hadith wa-l-athar, 4/154), then said:
Kikh, kikh. Do you not know that we do not eat the sadaqah?Reported by al-Bukhari (1420) and Muslim (1069)
This hadith establishes that the sadaqah is not lawful for Banu Hashim, that is, the family of the Messenger of Allah: he forbade al-Hasan ibn Ali a single date of the sadaqah, then explained the reason by saying "we do not eat the sadaqah". Another wording reads: "the sadaqah is not lawful for us", which is explicit that it is forbidden to them.
Then comes the long hadith of Abd al-Muttalib ibn Rabi'ah ibn al-Harith. Rabi'ah ibn al-Harith and al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib agreed to send the two young men, the narrator and Fadl ibn al-Abbas, to the Messenger of Allah to ask him to appoint them collectors of these sadaqat, so that they would take from it what people take and receive what people receive. Ali ibn Abi Talib opposed it: "Do not do it, for by Allah he will not do it." Rabi'ah took offense and read envy into it (Lisan al-'Arab, 14/77; Sharh Sahih Muslim by an-Nawawi, 7/178): "You see nothing in this but envy toward us: you married the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and we did not envy you." Ali then let them go.
After the dhuhr prayer the two young men raced ahead of everyone to the Prophet's room; that day he was with Zaynab bint Jahsh. One of them put the request: "O Messenger of Allah, you are the most dutiful and kindest of people toward their kin; we have reached the age of marriage, that is, puberty (Ikmal al-mu'allim bi-fawa'id Muslim, 3/627), and we have come so that you appoint us collectors of these sadaqat, to take from it as people take and to receive as they receive." He stayed silent for so long that they were about to speak again, while Zaynab gestured with her hand, from behind the veil (an-Nihayah, 4/271), warning them not to speak. Then he said:
The sadaqah does not befit the family of Muhammad: it is only the impurities of the people. Call Mahmiyah for me, the one in charge of the khums, along with Nawfal ibn al-Harith ibn Abd al-Muttalib.Reported by Muslim (1072)
Mahmiyah came. The Prophet told him: "Marry your daughter to this young man", meaning Fadl ibn al-Abbas, and he married her; then to Nawfal ibn al-Harith: "Marry your daughter to this young man for me", and he married me to her; and finally he told him: "Pay them from the khums so much and so much." These two hadiths prove that zakat is not valid for the family of Muhammad, Banu Hashim: the first through the words "the sadaqah does not befit the family of Muhammad, it is only the impurities of the people", his relatives being free of the impurities of the people; the second is explicit in the words "the sadaqah is not lawful for us".
Mahmiyah, incidentally, is Mahmiyah ibn Jaz' ibn Abd Yaghuth al-Zubaydi, an ally of Banu Sahm of Quraysh: an early Muslim who emigrated to Abyssinia, he was the Messenger of Allah's agent over the khums; Ibn al-Kalbi said he attended Badr, while al-Waqidi places his first battle at al-Muraysi' (al-Isti'ab fi ma'rifat al-ashab, 4/24; al-Isabah fi tamyiz al-sahabah, 6/36-37).
The scholars differed over giving the obligatory zakat to Banu al-Muttalib: two views stand opposed. The first holds that the sadaqah is not permitted to them; this is the madhhab of the Shafi'is and the Zahiris, one view among the Malikis, and the more apparent of the two narrations among the Hanbalis (al-Istidhkar, 5/81; al-Umm, 4/146; al-Muhalla, 6/147; Sharh al-Zarqani ala Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/483; Balghat al-salik, 1/427; Tarh al-tathrib, 4/35; Fath al-Bari, 3/354; Kifayat al-akhyar, 1/506; al-Hawi al-kabir, 7/516; Sharh Muslim by an-Nawawi, 7/165-176; al-Majmu', 6/218; al-Mughni, 3/432).
Imam an-Nawawi wrote: "Zakat is unlawful for Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib, without disagreement" (al-Majmu', 6/218). Ibn Qudamah reports this position of Ahmad, transmitted by Abdullah ibn Ahmad and others (al-Mughni, 3/432). Ibn Hazm adds: "It is not lawful either to give it to a disbeliever, nor to anyone of Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib, the two sons of Abd Manaf" (al-Muhalla, 6/144). Imam al-Shafi'i: "For Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib, the obligatory sadaqat are unlawful" (Mukhtasar al-Muzani, 1/133; al-Hawi al-kabir, 7/516). And Imam Ibn Hubayrah sums up: regarding Banu Abd al-Muttalib, Abu Hanifah held that the sadaqah is not unlawful for them, Malik and al-Shafi'i that it is, and Ahmad has two narrations, the more apparent being the prohibition (al-Ifsah, 1/375-377).
The holders of this view cite the Sunnah. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib reported that Jubayr ibn Mut'im told him: "I walked with Uthman ibn Affan to the Prophet and we said: you gave Banu al-Muttalib from the khums of Khaybar and left us aside, though we stand in the same position toward you. He replied:"
Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib are but one.Reported by al-Bukhari (3989)
Jubayr added: "The Prophet shared nothing with Banu Abd Shams nor with Banu Nawfal." This hadith proves the impermissibility of giving zakat to Banu al-Muttalib in two ways. First, by the words "Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib are but one": since it is not permitted to give zakat to Banu Hashim, the same applies to Banu al-Muttalib. Ibn Hazm concluded that their ruling can never be separated: they are one thing by the very text of the Prophet's words, hence the family of Muhammad, to whom the sadaqah is unlawful (al-Muhalla, 6/147). Second, Banu al-Muttalib receive from the khums like Banu Hashim; and since the latter receive it only in compensation for the zakat forbidden to them, it is known that Banu al-Muttalib also receive it in compensation for zakat, which proves they are not given from it (al-Mughni, 3/432).
The second view permits giving the obligatory sadaqah to Banu al-Muttalib; it is the madhhab of the Hanafis, the well-known view among the Malikis, and the second narration among the Hanbalis (al-Mabsut, 3/12; Bada'i' al-sana'i', 2/49; Fath al-Qadir, 2/710; Sharh al-Zarqani, 2/175; Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Jassas, 4/248; Ahkam al-Qur'an by Ibn al-'Arabi, 2/539; al-Mughni, 3/431; al-Sharh al-saghir, 1/427; Tabyin al-haqa'iq, 1/303; al-Ifsah, 1/377).
Al-Dardir wrote: "As for Banu al-Muttalib, the brothers of Hashim, they are not, in our view, of the family of the House, so they are given from it"; and al-Sawi clarifies: "they are not, in our view, of the family of the House", and this is the preponderant view (al-Sharh al-saghir with Balghat al-salik, 1/427).
Its holders invoke the Quran and the Sunnah. The Quran first:
"The sadaqat are only for the poor, the needy..."
Surah At-Tawbah, 60
This verse shows that the sadaqat are given only to the poor, the needy and the other categories named by Allah in the verse. Banu al-Muttalib, if they are poor, fall under the generality of this verse: it is thus permitted to give them zakat, and they may take it. The Sunnah next. Abdullah ibn al-Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) reported:
The Messenger of Allah prescribed the zakat of breaking the fast as a purification for the faster from idle talk and obscenity, and as food for the needy. Whoever pays it before the prayer, it is an accepted zakat; whoever pays it after the prayer, it is a sadaqah among the sadaqat.Reported by Abu Dawud (1609) and Ibn Majah (1827), a hasan hadith
This hadith proves the permissibility of giving zakat to Banu al-Muttalib through the words "food for the needy": "the needy" is a general term that includes Banu al-Muttalib when they are poor, like all other poor people.
It was previously explained who, among the poor and the needy, falls within these categories. Ibn Qudamah specifies that five categories receive only when in need: the poor, the needy, the contract-freed slave (mukatab), the debtor for his own interest, and the traveler; and that five others receive even in wealth (al-Mughni, 6/336):
The Hanafis, however, differ over the fighter and the debtor for reconciliation: they hold that they receive only when in need (Ibn Abidin, 2/179; Fath al-Qadir, 2/21).
Third exclusion: the disbelievers, even those under protection (dhimmis): it is not permitted to give them zakat. The scholars agreed that the zakat of wealth may not be directed to dhimmis. Ibn al-Mundhir reports their consensus: "the dhimmi is given nothing of the zakat of wealth" (al-Ijma', 32). Ibn Hubayrah confirms: "They agreed that zakat may not be paid out to a disbeliever", by virtue of the hadith:
Allah made obligatory upon them a sadaqah in their wealth, taken from their rich and returned to their poor.Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim
The Hanbalis nevertheless permitted, in one view, giving to these categories along with the collectors if they work on the zakat (al-Insaf, 3/252). The one whose heart is to be won is likewise excepted, with its details and the disagreement already mentioned in its place. The disbeliever meant here is the original disbeliever, the apostate, and whoever claims Islam while committing an act that takes one out of Islam, such as demeaning the Quran or insulting Allah, His Messenger or the religion of Islam: such a disbeliever cannot receive zakat, by agreement.
The Malikis stated explicitly that it is not valid to give it to people of sins if it is thought they spend it on them; otherwise giving to them is permitted. Al-Kharashi details: "It is given to the one of light deviation, such as preferring Ali over the rest of the Companions; it is valid for the Khariji, the Qadari and their like, according to the view that does not declare them disbelievers. People of sins are given what they spend on their necessities; if it is predominantly thought they spend it on sins, they are not given, and it is not valid if given" (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil by al-Kharashi, 2/213).
Al-'Adawi explains in his gloss that "light deviation" means a light innovation that does not require disbelief; by contrast, one does not give, by agreement, to the one who disbelieves through his innovation, such as the one who claims Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is a prophet, that Jibril (peace be upon him) erred, or that the imams and the prophets know the past and the future. Is giving to the light innovator contrary to what is preferable, or simply disliked? The apparent is simple dislike. For the Khariji and the Qadari, the question remains: forbidden or disliked? "In their necessities": what they are compelled to and need; is it what suits their state, or what repels the need even if unsuited to them? The apparent is the second, out of contempt for disobedience. "If it is predominantly thought" means the suspicion has grown firm: the apparent is that mere suspicion suffices to refrain from giving (Hashiyat al-'Adawi, 2/213).
Al-Dardir confirms: "It is not given to a disbeliever and it is not valid, as with people of sins if it is thought they spend it on them; otherwise giving to them is permitted"; al-Dasuqi specifies that the comparison bears on the lack of validity in case of suspicion (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ala al-Sharh al-kabir, 1/492). Imam al-Hattab reports that al-Burzuli asked al-Suyuri: may zakat be given to one who prays little? He answered that it is not given to him, in the strict sense, and if given it is deemed consumed. Al-Burzuli draws the consequence for people abandoned to licentiousness: if they spend the zakat on their necessities, even if they mostly spend it where it is not approved, such as buying wine or settling an unlawful debt, it is not given to them, and it is not valid from whoever gave it to them; for one would thereby reach disobedience, and what Allah has commanded is not made lawful by means of what He has forbidden. This is the view of those who hold them to be Muslims; according to the madhhab of the one who declares the one who abandons prayer a disbeliever, it is not valid, and Ibn Habib stated it explicitly; as for people of desires, they are treated by the rule we have laid down.
In "an-Nawadir", Asbagh transmitted: "Handing the zakat to the one whose situation is better is preferable to handing it to the one whose situation is bad, unless death is feared for him, in which case it is given to him; and when it is predominantly thought that the recipient spends it in disobedience, it is not given to him and it is not valid if it took place." End of quote.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about giving zakat to the people of innovation or to one who does not pray. He answered that a man should seek with it the deserving ones among the poor, the needy, the debtors and others of the people of religion, followers of the Sharia: "Whoever displays an innovation or an immorality deserves to be punished by being shunned and otherwise, and deserves to be called to repent: how then could he be helped in that?" As for the one who abandons prayer: the one who does not pray is commanded to pray; if he says "I will pray", he is given, otherwise he is not given (Majmu' al-fatawa, 25/87-89). In "al-Ikhtiyarat al-fiqhiyyah" he adds that zakat should not be given to the one who does not seek through it help to obey Allah, for Allah prescribed it as an aid to His obedience for the believer in need, such as the poor and the debtor, or for the one who helps the believers: "The one who does not pray, among the people of need, is given nothing until he repents and commits to performing the prayer at its times" (al-Ikhtiyarat, 154).
Ibn al-Mundhir reports the scholars' consensus: "it is not permitted to give zakat to the parents in the situation where the giver is compelled to spend on them" (al-Ijma', 32); for giving his zakat enriches them of his spending, lifts the obligation upon him, and the benefit returns to him: it is as if he gave it to himself, so it is not valid, just as if he settled his own debt with it (al-Mughni, 3/423). The vizier Ibn Hubayrah confirms their agreement that zakat may not be paid out to the parents and offspring, ascending or descending, except Malik: for the grandfather and the grandmother and their ascendants, as well as for the sons of sons, it is permitted to give it to them, because their maintenance does not fall upon him (al-Ifsah, 1/378; see also Fath al-Qadir, 2/269; al-Bada'i', 2/505; al-Mudawwana, 1/256; al-Furu', 2/475; Jawahir al-iklil, 1/407; al-Dasuqi, 498-499).
By "the two parents" is meant the father and the mother, and their own fathers and mothers as their degree rises above the giver, whether they inherit from him or not. By "the child", as its degree descends, is meant his sons and daughters, heirs or not. Ibn Qudamah reports that Ahmad stated it explicitly: "Zakat is not given to the two parents, nor to the son's son, nor to the grandfather, nor to the grandmother, nor to the daughter's son." The Prophet said of al-Hasan: "This son of mine is a master", counting him as his own son; because he belongs to the pillar of his lineage, most resembling an heir; and because between them there is kinship by share and by attachment, unlike others (al-Mughni, 3/423).
Ibn al-Mundhir, however, restricted the consensus to the case where spending is obligatory. If this condition is not met, as when the child is insolvent while owning a nisab on which zakat is due, an-Nawawi wrote: "If the child or the parent is poor or needy, and we hold in some cases that his maintenance is not obligatory, it is then permitted for his parent or his child to give him zakat from the share of the poor and the needy, without disagreement, for he is then like a stranger" (al-Majmu', 6/219).
An-Nawawi had explained before that our companions do not permit giving, from the share of the poor and the needy, to one's child or parent whose maintenance is obligatory, for two reasons: first, he is rich by virtue of that maintenance; second, by giving to the one whose maintenance one owes, one benefits oneself, namely by lifting the obligation of maintenance (al-Majmu', 6/219). Our companions do however permit giving to one's child or parent from the shares of the collectors, the contract-freed slaves, the debtors and the fighters, if the child or parent holds that quality; not from the share of those whose hearts are to be won if he is among those whose maintenance is obligatory, for the benefit returns to the giver, namely the lifting of maintenance; if he is not, it is permitted.
As for the traveler's share, the madhhab holds that if the child or parent is traveling, one gives him from the maintenance what exceeds the expenses of residence, along with the mount and the provisions, for this is not obligatory upon the provider and is not equivalent to the maintenance of residence, which is obligatory. Many of the companions, indeed most, ruled so; al-Mahamili ruled otherwise: nothing of the maintenance is given him, only the provisions, for his maintenance is obligatory in residence and travel alike, while provisions are not obligatory in travel. The earlier companions add that one may give one's child or parent from the collector's share if they are collectors. The qadi Abu al-Futuh objects that this is not valid, since it is inconceivable that a collector be given anything from his own zakat. The author of "al-Shamil" explains that the companions meant the case where the giver is the imam: he may give the wealth-owner's child or parent from the collector's share, if they are collectors, out of that child's or parent's zakat. All of this concerns a recipient whose maintenance is obligatory upon the giver; if someone else gives, the Khurasanis set out two views, the sounder being that he is not given, for he is sufficed by the obligatory maintenance his relative owes him.
If the child or parent is poor or needy and the maintenance is not obligatory in some cases, it is permitted to give him zakat from the share of the poor and the needy without disagreement, for he is then like a stranger. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about giving zakat to his parents and children whose maintenance is not obligatory: is it permitted or not? He answered that those who take zakat fall into two categories: those who take it for their own need, like the poor and the debtor for his own interest, and those who take it for the Muslims' need, like the fighter and the debtor reconciling people. To the latter it is permitted to give it even if they are relatives. As for parents who are in debt or contract-freed slaves, there are two views: the more apparent is permission. If they are poor and he is unable to spend on them, the stronger position is that giving to them is permitted in this situation, for the enabling factor is present and the impediment absent, so one acts upon the text free of the opposing obstacle (Majmu' al-fatawa, 25/90; al-Ikhtiyarat, 61-62).
He was finally asked about a poor, indebted woman with young children who have wealth and are under guardianship: may their zakat be given to their grandmother, and is she to be preferred to anyone else? (Majmu' al-fatawa, 25/90-91)
He answered: giving their zakat to this grandmother to settle her debt is permitted, according to the more apparent of the two sayings of the scholars, which is one of the two views in the madhhab of Ahmad and others; likewise giving it to other relatives toward a debt. As for giving it for maintenance: if she is independent of their maintenance or of others', it is not given to her; if she needs their zakat, it is given to her in the more apparent saying, and she has more right than strangers, and Allah knows best (Majmu' al-fatawa, 25/91). He was also asked: may one who has a debt take from his father's zakat to settle it? He answered that if the son has a debt he cannot repay, he may take from his father's zakat in the more apparent of the two views in the madhhab of Ahmad; if he needs maintenance and his father has nothing to spend on him, it is disputed, the more apparent being that he may take his father's zakat; if he is independent of his father's maintenance, he has no need of his zakat, and Allah knows best (25/92).
The jurists differed over the permissibility of giving zakat to relatives who inherit from them, such as brothers, paternal uncles and their children. The majority of jurists, Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad in one narration, hold it permitted to give zakat to inheriting relatives, such as brothers, paternal uncles and their children, as well as to relatives who do not inherit (Tuhfat al-fuqaha', 1/303; al-Hidayah, 1/113; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 2/62; Fath al-Qadir, 2/22; al-Ifsah, 1/374). Ahmad, in the other narration, holds it not permitted.
Al-Mughni details: as for the other relatives, whoever does not inherit from them may be given zakat, whether the absence of inheritance is due to the absence of its cause, because he is a distant relative whom neither Allah nor His Messenger named among the heirs, or to an impediment, such as the brother barred from inheritance by a son or a father, and the paternal uncle barred by the brother and that brother's son, however far descended: zakat may be given to him, for between them there is neither direct kinship nor inheritance, and he resembles strangers. If inheritance exists between them, as with two brothers each inheriting from the other, there are two narrations: the first holds that each may give his zakat to the other; this is the apparent from him, transmitted by all. Ishaq ibn Ibrahim and Ishaq ibn Mansur asked him: is zakat given to the brother, the sister and the maternal aunt? He answered: "All the relatives are given, except the two parents and the child"; this is the view of most of the scholars. Abu Ubayd held it as his own view, by virtue of the Prophet's saying:
Sadaqah given to a needy person is one sadaqah, and sadaqah given to a relative counts as two: a sadaqah and a tie of kinship.Reported by al-Tirmidhi (658), an-Nasa'i (2581) and Ibn Majah (1844), an authentic hadith
It was not required that the sadaqah be supererogatory or obligatory, nor was a distinction made between the heir and the non-heir; for this relative is not of the pillar of his lineage and resembles the stranger.
The second narration forbids giving zakat to the inheriting relative, and it is the apparent of al-Khiraqi's words: "nor to the one whose expenses he bears" (al-Mughni, 3/423-424; Fath al-Qadir, 2/270; al-Ifsah, 1/374). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was asked: is giving zakat to his needy relatives whose maintenance is not obligatory upon him preferable to giving it to a stranger? He answered that if the relative's need equals the stranger's, the relative is preferable; if the more distant one is in greater need, the relative is not preferred. Ahmad reported from Sufyan ibn Uyaynah: "They used to say: it is not given preferring a relative, nor used to ward off blame, nor to protect one's wealth" (Majmu' al-fatawa, 25/89).
A husband may not give his zakat to his wife, by the consensus of the scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir reports: "The scholars agreed that a man does not give his wife from the zakat, for her maintenance is obligatory upon him and she is rich through his wealth" (al-Ijma', 46; al-Ishraf, 3/104). She is thereby independent of taking zakat, so it is not valid to give it to her, just as if he gave it to her as the maintenance he owes her (al-Ijma', 32; al-Mughni, 3/424).