This is a matter that has become a necessitated prevalence and spoken about among various groups. On one side, we have the majority of jurists (fuqahā᾽), both ancient and contemporary, who are against it, while a rare few permit it, some with conditions.
The correct view, which we adhere to before Allāh, is that Zakāh has specific recipients defined by Allāh in His Book, and these were implemented by the Prophet (peace be upon him) during his life and afterward by his noble Companions and righteous predecessors. These recipients are: “the poor, the needy, those employed to collect (the funds); to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam); to free the captives; for those in debt; for Allāh’s Cause, and for the wayfarer.” [Al-Tawbah: 60].
Each of these categories is a specific entity that is subject to ownership transfer from the one giving Zakāh. Building mosques, schools, bridges, or digging wells, among other things people have expanded upon, are not included in these recipients.
As for relying on a broad interpretation of the category (for Allāh’s Cause) to include all acts of goodness, this is not correct either in terms of linguistic structure, jurisprudence, or practical application.
Here are the reasons:
- The verse starts with the restrictive term (إِنَّمَا) (᾽innamā) and, coupled with the possessive preposition (ل) (lām al-milk), specifies the categories without allowing for any additions, whether in type or indication. For example, the poor are the known poor, and this does not include those who are not legally poor even if they are called poor, such as Sufis who call themselves “the poor”; this naming does not make them eligible for Zakāh unless they are truly poor. Similarly, the term needy refers to the needy and the oppressed, on the contrary of the trader, but only those who are needy in the sense of lacking resources are eligible for Zakāh.
The term (for Allāh’s Cause) (fī sabīl-Allāh) has a general meaning that includes all acts of goodness and a specific meaning, which is jihād in the way of Allāh. The intended meaning here, as indicated by other Quranic uses, is the latter.
- Expanding the term (for Allāh’s cause) to mean all acts of goodness disrupts the structure of the verse, as all the specified categories are also in the way of Allāh. So, how would Allāh mention all these categories and then follow them with the category of (for Allāh’s cause)?
Hence, based on this interpretation, it would have been better to say (all Zakāh charities are for Allāh’s cause) only, encompassing all ways of goodness.
It is a weak argument to claim that this is following a specific meaning with a general meaning (῾aṭf al-῾ām ῾alā al-khāṣ), because the term (for Allāh’s cause) is in the middle, no at the end, of specific meanings. Linguistically, it is wrong to say: “I gave Zayd, the students and Amr a book,” while Zayd and Amr are both students.
Similarly, the terms (for Allāh’s cause) comes after all previous categories and before (the wayfarer), indicating that it is a specific type not a general meaning.
- The institutions mentioned, such as schools and public bodies, are not suitable for ownership transfer as they are legal entities, not actual or accountable persons. They themselves are owned and not eligible to own something, so how can the owned possess? This would lead to the possession to be owned by the owner of these institutions. This would lead to a conflict of rights.
- The Prophet (peace be upon him) and his noble Companions were in dire need of building mosques and educational institutions like schools and kuttābs (Qur᾽ān circles), and there was poverty and need. Despite this, we do not know of a single text indicating that they used Zakāh funds for these purposes, even with the need and lack of funds. How can we then do this now when we are in more comfortable circumstances?
The conclusion is:
Zakāt al-Māl (wealth zakāh) is only for humans, not buildings, and should be distributed to the specified recipients. The category (for Allāh’s cause) is limited to jihād and the fighters. The most we can expand it to include is those who engage in combat with weapons and those who fight with words to support (jihād al-sayf) the physical jihād. Anything beyond that is not permissible.
Fatwā issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr
