النص المفهرس

Bahishtī Zewar:
Zakāh must be paid immediately after the expiry of the lunar year. It is
not good to delay in doing good actions.1
وانظر أيضا: شامى: ٢٣٤٤، سعيد. والفتاوى الهندية: ١٨٨. وتبيين الحقائق: ١٣٠٠.
وكتاب الفتاوى: ٣٣٠٠. وفتاوى رحيميه: ٢٨)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Giving a zakah amount as a loan to a poor person
Question
A person gives an amount of zakāh as a loan to a poor person, and he is
required to repay the loan. Will the zakah be fulfilled?
Answer
In this case, ownership did not take place, so the zakah is not fulfilled.
Badā'i' as-Sanā'i':
وقد أمر الله الملاك بإيتاء الزكاة لقوله عز وجل: {وآتوا الزكاة} والإيتاء بو
التمليك، ولذا سمى الله تعالى الزكاة صدقة بقوله تعالى : {إنما الصدقات
للفقراء.} والتصدق تمليك. (بدائع الصنائع: ٢٣٩، سعيد)
Fath al-Qadir:
ولا يبنى بها مسجد ولا يكفن بها ميت، لانعدام التمليك وبو الركن فإن
الله تعالى سمابا صدقة، وحقيقة الصدقة تمليك المال من الفقير. (فتح القدير:
٢٢٦٧، دار الفكر. وكذا فى العناية شرح الهداية: ٢٦٧ ٢، دار الفكر)
Fatāwā Rahīmīyyah:
It is not permissible to give a zakah amount as a loan to a poor person.
Zakāh is not fulfilled as long as a needy Muslim is not made an owner
of the zakah amount.2
1 Bahishtī Zewar, part 3, p. 27.
2 Fatāwā Rahīmīyyah, vol. 3, p. 203; Fatāwā Dār al-Ulūm Deoband, vol. 6, p. 195.
181

Taking a zakah amount back from the person who is appointed as a
representative for the payment of zakäh
Question
Zayd gave R50 000 of zakāh to 'Umar to distribute among the poor.
'Umar has not distributed the amount as yet or part of it still remains
to be distributed. Zayd says to 'Umar: "Return the undistributed
amount to me and I will distribute it myself." 'Umar refuses to give it
back. Can Zayd take this amount back?
Answer
If Zayd appointed 'Umar as his representative (wakil) for the
distribution of zakah and removes him from this appointment before
its distribution, 'Umar has been removed. Zayd will take the money
back and pay it himself.
It is stated in al-Fatāwā al-Hindīyyah that if a person gives five dirhams
from a zakah amount of 200 dirhams to a representative and the latter
has not paid it as yet, and the owner realized that he has one dirham
less than 200 dirhams - in other words, he is not liable to pay zakah -
he can take the five dirhams back from the representative. Yes, if the
representative has already given it to the poor, the owner does not
have the right to ask for it. The text reads as follows:
رجل أدى خمسة من المأتين بعد الحول إلى الفقير أو إلى الوكيل لاجل الزكاة، ثم
ظهر فيها دربم ستوقة لم تكن تلك الخمسة زكاة لنقصان النصاب، وإذا أراد
أن يسترد الخمسة من الفقير ليس له ذلك وله أن يسترد من الوكيل إن لم
يتصدق بها، بكذا في فتاوى قاضيخان. (الفتاوى الهندية: ١٧٧٢)
We learn from this that the amount which reaches the poor with the
intention of charity cannot be taken back. But what has been given to
a representative can be taken back. If a zakah amount is given to the
zakāh collector ('āmil) or madrasah collector, it cannot be taken back
because he is a representative on behalf of the poor as well. This is
why if a zakah amount is lost while under the care of the collector, the
zakāh will be fulfilled.
ولو بلك المال في يد العامل أوضاع سقط حقه وأجزأ عن الزكاة. (بندية: ١٧٨٨)
182

وفي الدر المختار: لا يخرج عن العهدة بخلاف ما إذا ضاعت في يد الساعي،
لأن يده كيد الفقرائ. (الدر المختار مع الشامى: ٢٢٧٠، سعيد)
(وكذا فى امداد المفتين: جلد دوم ص ١٠٨٥. وامداد الفتاوى: ٣٣١٦. وجديد
فقهى مسائل: ١٢٢٧)
The jurists state the following: A person said: "I have been appointed
by such and such person for the retrieval of a debt." The debtor rejects
the person's representation and pays the debts, even then the debtor
cannot take the money back from the representative.
Ad-Durr al-Mukhtār:
أدعى أنه وكيل الغائب بقبض دينه فصدقه الغريم أمر بدفعه إليه .. وكذا إذا لم
يصدق على الوكالة ودفع له ذلک على زعمه ... وفي الوجوه كلها الغريم ليس له
الاسترداد حتى يحضر الغائب. (الدر المختار: ٥٥٣٢، سعيد)
Takmilah Fath al-Qadir:
"في الوجوه كلها" يعني الوجوه الأربعة المذكورة وبي: (١) دفعه مع التصديق من
غير تضمين (٢) ودفعه بالتصديق مع التضمين (٣) ودفعه ساكتاً من غير
تصديق ولا تكذيب (٤) ودفعه مع التكذيب. ليس للغريم أن يسترد المدفوع
حتى يحضر الغائب لأن المؤدى صار حقاً للغائب، إما ظابراً وبو في حالة
التصديق أو محتملاً وبو في حالة التكذيب كذا في عامة الشروح. (تكملة
فتح القدير: ٨٧٢٨، دار الفكر)
In the light of the above-quoted juridical texts, the difference between
a debt and zakāh becomes clear in the sense that in a debt, the debtor
cannot take the amount back from the representative because the
right of the creditor is a strong and solid right. On the other hand, the
owner [of the zakah amount] can take it back from his representative
because the right of the poor is not a strong right. It is only affirmed
after it is given over to the poor. However, if the representative is
representing both parties, it can be taken back from him.
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
183

When a person passes away after zakah was wajib on him
Question
Zakāh was wajib on a person but he passed away before he could fulfil
it. Will the zakah amount be taken out of his estate?
Answer
There are several scenarios in this regard:
(1)
Zakāh was wajib and the person passed away before he could fulfil it.
The zakah amount will not be taken out of his estate after his death.
This is because an intention is a prerequisite for zakah, and there is no
intention in this case.
Al-Fatāwā al-Hindīyyah:
إذا مات من عليه الزكاة سقطت الزكاة بموته، كذا في المحيط. (الفتاوى
الهندية: ١٧٦)
Ad-Durr al-Mukhtār:
وشرط صحة أدائها نية مقارنة له أي للأداء ولو حكماً. (الدر المختار: ٢٢٦٨،
سعيد)
(2)
The deceased stated in his will that zakah must be paid from his
wealth, and the zakah amount is less than one third his total estate or
equal to it. It will be necessary for the heirs to pay the zakah amount.
(3)
Before he could pass away, the person took the zakah amount and left
it one side or gave it to a representative. He then passed away before it
could be given away. If the deceased had made a bequest, it will be
paid from one third of his total estate. If he did not make a bequest,
the amount which he had kept separately will be included in the estate
and distributed among the heirs. This is because the representative is
considered to be removed from his representation with the death of
184

the person who appointed him. The representative's actions with
respect to that amount will not be valid.1
Ad-Durr al-Mukhtār:
ولو مات فأدابا وارثه جاز، وفي الشامى: "جاز" في الجوبرة: إذا مات من عليه
زكاة، أو فطرة أو كفارة أو نذر لم تؤخذ من تركته عندنا، إلا أن يتبرع ورثته
بذلك وبو من أبل التبرع ولم يجبروا عليه، وإن أوصى تنفذ من الثلث.
(الشامى: ٢٣٥٩، سعيد)
ولا يخرج عن العهدة بالعزل بل بالأداء للفقراء أو تصدق بكله، وفي الشامى:
فلو ضاعت لا تسقط عنه الزكاة ولو مات كانت ميراثاً عن (شامى: ٢٢٧٠،
سعيد)
(4)
If the deceased did not make a bequest for the payment of zakah, but
the mature heirs want to pay the zakah on behalf of their deceased
from their respective shares, then there is hope that Allah ta'ala will
accept it and absolve the deceased from his obligation.
Shāmī:
إلا أن يتبرع ورثته بذلك وبم من أبل التبرع، ولم يجبروا عليه. (شامى: ٢٣٥٩،
سعيد)
Kitab al-Fatāwā:
A person had to pay an amount as zakah. He neither paid it nor did he
make a bequest for its payment. His heirs are not obligated to pay
it ... however, kindness demands that the heirs make efforts to pay it as
far as possible. It may well be that Allāh ta'ala will pardon him because
of it.2
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
1 As gauged from Ahsan al-Fatāwā, vol. 4, p. 265.
2 Kitāb al-Fatāwā, vol. 3, p. 336.
185

The order to obtain a clear permission from one's son
Question
A person has been paying zakah on behalf of his son for several years.
The son is aware of it but did not give an explicit permission for its
payment. Is the zakāh fulfilled?
Answer
The zakah is fulfilled on behalf of the son because permission in itself
is necessary irrespective of whether it is explicit or it is understood as
a permission through any other means. This is similar to the ruling of
the jurists as regards qurbanī. However, there is more caution in
obtaining an explicit permission as is the view of some jurists.
Al-Hidāyah:
(ولا يؤدي عن زوجته ... ولا عن أولاده الكبار وإن كانوا في عياله) لانعدام
الولاية، ولو أدى عنهم أو عن زوجته بغير أمرهم أجزأه استحساناً لثبوت
الإذن عادة. (الهداية: ١٢٠٩، باب صدقة الفطر)
Al-Fatāwā al-Hindīyyah:
ولا يؤدي عن زوجته ولا عن أولاده الكبار وإن كانوا في عياله، ولو أدى عنهم
أو عن زوجته بغير أمرهم أجزأه استحساناً كذا في الهداية، وعليه الفتوى كذا
في فتاوی قاضیخان. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٩٣ ١)
Fatāwā Qādī Khăn:
وليس على الرجل أن يضحي عن أولاده الكبار وامرأته إلا بإذنهم، وعن أبي
يوسف أنه يجوز بغير أمرهم استحساناً. (فتاوى قاضى خان: ٣٣٤٥)
Shāmī:
ولو ضخّى عن أولاده الكبار وزوجته لا يجوز إلا بإذنهم وعن الثاني يجوز
استحساناً بلا إذنهم ... ولعلم ذهب إلى أن العادة إذا جرت من الأب في كل
سنة صار كالإذن منهم ... فإن كان على هذا الوجه فما استحسن أبو يوسف
186

مستحسن. (شامى: ٦٣١٥، كتاب الاضحية، سعيد. وكذا فى الفتاوى البزازية
على بامش الهندية: ٦٢٩٥ فصل السابع فى التضحية عن الغير)
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Giving qurbānī meat as zakāh
Question
Is it permissible to give qurbanī meat with the intention of zakāh?
Answer
It is not permissible to give qurbanī meat with the intention of zakāh
because one obligation has been fulfilled with it, and another
obligation cannot be fulfilled with the same thing. It is like water that
has been used for wudū' or ghusl. Furthermore, zakāh is a debt which
is owed to Allah ta'ālā, and it is not permissible to give qurbanī meat as
a payment for a debt or for any other form of payment.
Shāmī:
وإذا رفع اللحم إلى فقير بنية الزكاة لا يحسب عنها في ظابر الرواية. (شامى:
٢٨ ٢٣، سعيد)
Badā'i' as-Sanā'i':
ولا يعطى أجر الجزار والذابح لما روي عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه
قال: من باع جلد أضحية فلا أضحية له، وروي أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
قال لعلي رضي الله عنه: تصدق بجلالها وخطامها ولا يعطى أجر الجزار منها،
وروي عن سيدنا علي رضي الله عنه أنه قال: إذا أضحيتم فلا تبيعوا لحوم
ضحاياكم. (بدائع الصنائع: ٥٨١، سعيد)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
When a creditor is paid zakah on behalf of the debtor
Question
A person has a debt to pay and he is also eligible for zakāh. Someone
said to him: "I will pay your debt on your behalf." He then pays the
debt on his behalf by giving a zakah amount to the creditor. Will the
zakāh be fulfilled?
187

Answer
The debtor informs his creditor thus: "Such and such person will pay
my debt on my behalf, you must accept it from him from my side." In
such a case, the creditor will first take possession of it from the side of
the debtor. The zakah will be fulfilled. Once he exercises his right over
it, it will mean taking possession of a right which is due to him.
Therefore the debt too will be fulfilled.
Shāmī:
والأصل أن القبضين إذا تجانسا ناب أحدبما عن الآخر، وإذا تغايرا ناب الأعلى
عن الأدنى لا عكس، فقبض الوديعة مع قبض الهبة يتجانسان لأنهما قبض
أمانة ومع قبض الشراء يتغايران، لأنه قبض ضمان فلا ينوب الأول عنه.
(شامی: ٥٨٩٤، کتاب الهبم، سعيد)
Sharh al-Majallah:
ولو أنفق الوديع يعني الوديعة ثم رد مثله وخلطه بالباقي خلطاً لا يتميز معه
ضمن الكل (تنوير) أي فيضمن البعض بالإنفاق والبعض بالخلط (طحطاوى).
(شرح المجلة: ١٤٣٨، بيروت)
لو كان المبيع في يد المشترى عارية أو وديعة أو ربناً ثم اشتراه من مالكم لا
يصير قابضاً بمجرد العقد لأن قبض العارية والوديعة والربن قبض أمانة ولا
ينوب عن قبض الشراء لأن قبض الشراء مضمون بنفسه ولكن لو فعل
المشتري في فصل الوديعة والعارية ما يكون قابضاً من ثم أراد البائع أخذ
المبيع ليحبسه بالثمن لم يكن له ذلك. (شرح المجلة: ١٤٣٨)
Shāmī:
ومنه لو غصب شيئاً ثم اشتراه صار قابضاً بخلاف الوديعة والعارية إلا إذا
وصل إليه بعد التخلية. (شامى: ٤٥٦١، مطلب فى حبس المبيع لقبض الثمن،
سعيد)
188

It is gauged from the text of Shamī that if a trust is handed over to a
trustee, he has taken possession of it, and he then exercises his right
over it, then his taking possession of it is valid. Here too, once the
debtor exercises his right over the debt after taking possession of it,
then his taking possession will be valid.
Jadīd Fiqhī Mabāhith:
In certain situations, a single qabdah (taking possession) suffices for
two qabdahs. One is the original and the other is representational.
However, this is not a general rule. If the transaction is left externally,
then what comes out of it is that the person who obtains goods from
the market for an organization is the buyer and the seller on behalf of
the organization, and for himself as well because he bought it from the
organization. Yes, we could say that his transaction of buying from the
organization which took place before obtaining the goods from the
market is merely a promise. Thus, at the time of buying from the
market he is merely a representative of the organization for the sake
of the purchase. When he brings it under his possession after
acquiring the goods, and exercises his ownership rights over it, then as
per the previous promise, he becomes a buyer of the said goods on
behalf of the organization. The previous representational possession
now becomes an original possession. That is, it becomes a qabdah for
himself.1
Thus, even in the situation under question, the debtor's qabdah was
first a representational qabdah on behalf of the poor. Once he keeps it
in his possession and exercises his ownership rights over it, then as
per the previous promise he becomes the person who collects the
debt. The previous representational qabdah now becomes an original
gabdah. In other words, it becomes a qabdah for himself. The zakāh of
the wealthy person is fulfilled and the debt of the poor person is paid
off.
However, it is better if the debtor's wife is made the representative to
take qabdah on behalf of the creditor. After she takes possession of it,
she will give it to her husband.
Al-Ashbāh wa an-Nazā'ir:
أو يوكل المديون خادم الدائن بقبض الزكاة ثم بقضاء دينه فيقبض الوكيل
صارملكاً للمؤكل. (الأشباه والنظائر: كتاب الحيل ص ٤٢٨)
1 Jadīd Fiqhī Mabāhith, vol. 3, p. 426.
189

Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Zakāh is given in the name of a loan, and the poor person then gives it
back
Question
A person gave zakāh to a poor man and called it a loan, by saying: "I
am giving it as a loan." The poor person then wanted to return it but
the owner refused to take it back. The poor person gave it back by
force. Is it wajib to given this amount in charity a second time? I am
asking this because it appears as though the zakah has been fulfilled.
Answer
When it is wajib to give an amount as charity, it is not permissible for
the giver to take it. If the poor person is insisting on giving it back, he
must take it and give it to someone else. He cannot use the amount for
himself. No matter what, the zakah is fulfilled.
Al-Fatāwā al-Hindīyyah:
ومن أعطى مسكيناً درهماً وسماها هبة أو قرضاً ونوى الزكاة فإنها تجزئه في
الأصح. (الفتاوى الهندية: ١٧٧١)
Ad-Durr al-Mukhtār:
إنه لا اعتبار للتسمية فلو سماها هبة أو قرضاً تجزئه فى الأصح. (رد المحتار:
٢٢٦٨، سعيد)
Al-Fatāwā al-Hindīyyah:
فهي تمليك المال من فقير مسلم غير هاشمي ولا مولاه بشرط قطع المنفعة
عن المملك من كل وجه الله تعالى، بذا في الشرع كذا في التبيين. (الفتاوى
الهندية: ١٧٠)
Imdād al-Ahkām:
'Amr asked Zayd for a loan. When Zayd gave it to him, he did not say it
is not a loan, instead, he said it is a gift. The zakah of Zayd will be
fulfilled because he made the intention of zakah. However, it is not
permissible for him to take this amount back from 'Amr because it will
mean that he is taking back a charity ... If Zayd took this amount back, it
190

is necessary for him to give it back to 'Amr in some way or the other. If
not, there will be a doubt as to whether his zakah is fulfilled or not.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A poor person has an item which was given to him as zakah, and he
becomes rich later on
Question
A man is poor and was given an item as zakah. He continues using the
item. Later on life, he becomes rich. Can he use that item? Outwardly it
seems as though he shouldn't be allowed to use it because he is now a
sāhib-e-nisāb.
Answer
He can use the item even after becoming a sahib-e-nisab.
Al-Hidāyah:
إنه لاخبث في نفس الصدقة وإنما الخبث في فعل الأخذ لكونه إذلالاً ب فلا
يجوز ذلك للغني من غير حاجة وللهاشمي لزيادة حرمته والأخذ "أي أخذ
الصدقات" لم يوجد من المولى فصار كابن السبيل إذا وصل إلى وطنه والفقير
إذا استغنى وقد بقي في أيديهما ما أخذا من الصدقة حيث يطيب لهما.
(الهداية: ٣٣٣٩، كتاب المكاتب، باب موت المكاتب وعجزه)
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
A wealthy person using zakah items belonging to a poor person
Question
A poor person receives items as zakāh, e.g. books, utensils, furniture,
linen, etc. Wealthy people come to visit him and they use these items.
Is this permissible?
Answer
In the light of the following text of al-Hidayah, we learn that it is
permissible for a wealthy person to use those items when he is made
owner of them. But if he uses them as an ibahah (permission) as in the
question, then it is not permissible.
191

وبذا بخلاف ما إذا أباح للغني والهاشمي لأن المباح لم يتناول على ملك المبيح
فلم يتبدل الملك فلا تطيبه. (الهداية: ٣٩ ٣٣)
However, this ruling entails many problems and inconveniences. For
example, a person has a carpet which he received as zakah. When
wealthy people come into his house, he has to tell them not to walk on
it because it is zakah wealth. Furthermore, it is also humiliating to
disclose that a certain item was received as zakāh. This is why the
commentator of al-Hidāyah, Sa'dī Chalpī rahimahullah, is inclined
towards the view that it is permissible. I too am inclined to this view.
The author of al-Hidayah says that there is no filthiness in charity, but
there is harm in accepting it. This is why it is humiliating for a
Hashimī and a wealthy person to accept zakāh. Hadrat Maulānā Sa'dī
Chalpī rahimahullah says that if a wealthy person uses a zakāh item at
the house of a poor person, it ought to be permissible, because he did
not take it as its owner, he merely used it.
قال المصنف: ولا يجوز ذلك للغني من غير حاجة وللهاشمي لزيادة حرمته.
أقول: فعلى بذا لو أباح الفقير للغني أو الهاشمي ينبغي أن يطيب لهما عنده، إذ
لا أخذ منهما كما لا يخفى. (تكملة فتح القدير مع حاشية سعدى چلٍ:
٩٢١٤، دار الفكر)
Moreover, it is not necessary to disclose that a certain item is from
zakāh. Therefore, wealthy people too may use it. Had it been
impressible for wealthy people to use it, it would have been necessary
to disclose that this item is from zakah. And this is not the case.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Question
Some muftīs say that this is not permissible for a wealthy person. For
example, Hadrat Muftī Rashīd Ahmad Ludhyanwī rahimahullah states
in Ahsan al-Fatawa that it is not permissible. He adds that those who
permit it have not investigated the issue. His text reads as follows:
Those who give permission did not revert to the source books at the
time of writing the fatwa.1
What is the reply to this?
1 Ahsan al-Fatāwā, vol. 4, p. 259.
192

Answer
After evaluating the texts which state impermissibility, and problems
and difficulties were perceived, then Hadrat Maulana Sa'dī Chalpī
rahimahullah gave the opposite ruling and said that it is permissible. In
the light of his statement, we expressed our inclination towards the
ruling of permissibility. Furthermore, we present the following text
from al-Fatāwā at-Tātārkhānīyyah:
الفقير إذا أباح للغني عين ما أخذ من الزكاة من الطعام بل يحل له التناول؟
قال بعض المشايخ: يحل، وإليه مال شيخ الإسلام. (الفتاوى التاتار خانية:
٢٢٦٨، ادارة القرآن)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Making an intention of zakah when asking the debtor to pay it to
someone else
Question
The lender said to the borrower: "You must give the money which I
loaned to you to Zayd." At the time of saying this, the lender made the
intention of zakāh. Will his zakah be fulfilled?
Answer
If the creditor made the intention of zakah before the debtor could pay
him, the zakah will be fulfilled.
Fath al-Qadir:
قال: أعطى رجلاً دراهم ليتصدق بها تطوعاً فلم يتصدق حتى نوى الآمر من
زكاة ماله من غير أن يتلفظ به ثم تصدق المأمور جازت عن الزكاة. (فتح
القدير: ٢٧٧٠، دار الفكر)
Natā'ijal-Afkār:
بخلاف ما نحن فيه لأن التوكيل بالقبض يثبت فيه بأمر الآمر، وأنه يسبق
الشراء، وبخلاف ما إذا وهب الدين من غير من عليه الدين حيث تصح الهبة
ويثبت الأمر من الواهب للموهوب له بالقبض في ضمن الهبة لأن الملك
يتوقف إلى زمان القبض فيكون التوكيل بالقبض سابقاً على التمليك معنى.
193

(وبخلاف ما إذا أمره بالتصدق) جواب عن قياسهما على الآمر بالتصدق ولم
يذكر في الكتاب وقد ذكرناه فى سياق دليلهما (لأنه) أي الآمر بالتصدق
(جعل المال لله تعالى) ونصب الفقير وكيلاً عن الله عز وجل في قبض حقه
كذا في الكافي وغيره (وهو معلوم) أي الله تبارك وتعالى معلوم فكان كتعيين
البائع في المسئلة الأولى، وأما مسئلة التصادق في الشراء، بأن لا دين له عليه
فلأن الدراهم والدنانير لا يتعينان في الشراء عيناً أو ديناً ولكن يتعينان في
الوكالات، فلما لم يتعينا في الشراء لم يبطل الشراء ببطلان الدين، كذا ذكره
الإمام المرغيناني وقاضيخان. (نتائج الأفكار: ٨٨٢ باب الوكالة فى البيع والشراء،
دار الفكر)
Ad-Durr al-Mukhtār:
(ولو أمره) أي أمر رجل مديونه (بالتصدق بما عليه صح) أمره بجعله المال لله
تعالى وهو معلوم كما صح أمره (لو أمر) الآخر المستأجرة بمرمة ما استأجره
كما عليه من الأجرة وكذا لو أمره بشراء عبد يسوق الدابة وينفق عليها صح
اتفاق للضرورة، لأن لا يجد الآجر كل وقت فجعل المؤجر كالمؤجر في القبض.
(الدر المختار: ١٩(٥، باب الوكالة بالبيع والشراء، سعيد)
Tahtāwī 'Alā ad-Durr:
ولو أمره أي أمر رجل مديونه بالتصدق بما عليه صح أمره بجعله المال لله
تعالى وهو معلوم (قوله بجعله المال لله) أي والفقير غائب عنه والباء للسببية.
(طحطاوى على الدر ٣٢٧٣)
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
When more than the wajib amount is given as zakah
Question
A person estimated an amount as zakah for one year and paid it.
Subsequently, when he made his calculations, he learnt that he had
194

given more than what was wajib on him. Can he include the additional
amount as zakāh for the next year?
Answer
The additional amount can be included as zakah for the next year.
Al-Fatāwā al-Walwālijīyyah:
رجل لم أربع مائة درهم فظن أن عنده خمس مائة درهم فأدى زكاة خمس مائة،
ثم ظهر أن عنده أربع مائة، فله أن يحتسب الزكاه للسنة الثانية، لأنه أمكن
أن يجعل الزيادة تعجيلاً. (الفتاوى الولوالجية: ٩٣ ١، الفصل الثالث فى تعجيل
الزكاة، بيروت، وكذا فى الشامى: ٢٢٩٣، سعيد والبحر الرائق: ٢٥°٢، كوئثر)
Kitab al-Fatāwā:
Question: A person gave 10 000 rupees as zakāh. But when he made his
calculations, he realized he had to pay only 8 000 rupees. Can he
include the 2 000 rupees as zakah for the future?
Answer: Yes. After becoming an owner of nisab, a person can pay
zakāh for more than one year before time. It will be as though,
together with paying the zakah for this year, he paid an amount for
the next year as well. This is permissible.1
Imdād al-Ahkām:
If an amount which is more than the wajib amount is given as zakah, it
can be included in the zakāh of the following year.2
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
When zakah money of a madrasah is stolen from the collector
Question
A person gave an amount of zakah to a madrasah collector [who is
collecting funds on behalf of the madrasah]. The collector either lost
the money or it got stolen. I have two questions in this regard: (1) Is
the zakah fulfilled? (2) Is the collector accountable to repay the
amount?
1 Kitab al-Fatāwā, vol. 3, p. 321.
2 Imdād al-Ahkām, vol. 2, p. 22.
195

Answer
(1) The senior scholars concur that a madrasah collector is actually a
wakil (representative) of behalf of the students. When a wakil takes
possession, it is equal to the possession of the one who appointed him.
In this regard, the zakah is fulfilled.
(2) The madrasah collector is a wakil and also an amin (a person who is
entrusted). If he made appropriate arrangements for the safeguarding
of the money, and then it gets lost or is stolen, he does not have to pay
it back. However, if he was negligent as regards its safeguarding, he
will have to pay back the amount.
Īdāh al-Masā'il:
If a zakāh amount is stolen from the hands of madrasah collectors, or
it is stolen or lost while in the possession of the principal; and there
was no negligence as regards its safekeeping, then there is no
repayment on these people. The zakah of the person who gave it will
also be fulfilled. The reason for this is that these people [collectors,
principals] are the representatives of the poor students both in
practice and on the basis of the norm of society. When a
representative takes possession, it is as though the poor person has
taken possession of the zakāh.
If these people were negligent as regards its safekeeping, made
changes to the zakah amount, or mixed it with their own money, it
will be wajib on them to pay back. It will be necessary for them to take
money from their own pockets and give it to the poor.1
Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah:
If the madrasah principal is the representative of the students, then
his taking possession is as though the students took possession. The
zakāh is therefore fulfilled. No penalty has to be paid by anyone.2
Imdād al-Muftīyyīn:
The madrasah principals and the collectors appointed by them fall
under the category of those employed to collect charity, and are
therefore representatives of the poor. The donor's status is that of
someone accepting the representation of these people [madrasah
principals and collectors], and handing the money over to them. When
the zakah amount came into their possession as representatives of the
1 Īdāh al-Masā'il, p. 120.
2 Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 9, p. 513.
196

poor, the amount becomes the wealth of the poor, and the zakah of
those who gave the amount is fulfilled.
Hadrat Maulānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī rahimahullah said in reply to a
question: These students and poor people are unknown as regards
their number and their identity. Despite this, their representation in
favour of the principal of the madrasah is socially established, and
when they [principals and collectors] take possession of the amount, it
is as though the poor have taken possession of it.1
For further details refer to: Fatāwā Khalīlīyyah, vol. 1, p. 154; Jadīd Fiqhī
Masā'il, vol. 1, p. 226.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
When a zakah amount for a clinic is stolen
Question
A clinic has a zakāh fund from which medicines are bought and given
to poor patients. If zakah was collected for this purpose, and was lost
or stolen while with the collector, is the zakah fulfilled?
Answer
Those who benefit from a hospital are generally people who live near
it, just as when we speak of a madrasah we are referring to the
students of the madrasah. The patients of the hospital refer to the
poor patients. The zakah is therefore fulfilled. It is not necessary to
pay it again. This issue is the same as the previous one when applied to
the madrasah collectors. Refer to the proofs there.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Deducting the mahr amount when calculating zakah
Question
A person still has to pay the dowry to his wife. The amount of the
dowry is 100 000 rands. When the person is calculating his zakāh, will
he deduct this amount from his assets? Or does he have to pay zakāh
on the entire amount?
Answer
If the husband has no intention of paying the dowry, or the wife does
not demand it due to the social norms ('urf), it will be necessary to pay
1 Imdād al-Muftīyyīn, vol. 2, p. 1085.
197

zakāh on the entire amount. If he has an intention of paying the
dowry, he must deduct the dowry amount from his assets, and pay
zakāh on the remainder.
Al-Fatāwā al-Hindīyyah:
وذكر البزدوي في شرح الجامع الكبير: قال مشايخنا: في رجل عليه مهر مؤجل
لامرأته وهو لا يريد أدائه لا يجعل مانعاً من الزكاة لعدم المطالبة في العادة وأنه
حسن أيضاً هكذا في جواهر الفتاوى. (الفتاوى الهندية: ١١\٢٣)
If - although the dowry is a deferred dowry (mahr mu'ajjal) - the
person is concerned about paying it, zakāh is not wajib. If not, it will be
wājib.1
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Deducting expenses when calculating zakāh
Question
A person sent an amount for the construction of a house, or he sent
books bought with zakah money for the person's needs, or he sent a
person to distribute zakāh money to the poor. Can the rent be
deducted from the zakah amount?
Answer
Firstly, efforts must be made to have an amount separate from the
zakāh amount for the payment of expenses. However, if there is no
alternative, there ought to be a leeway for paying it from the zakah
amount.
قال الله تعالى: "إنما الصدقات للفقراء والمساكين والعاملين عليها" (التوبة: ٦٠)
Kifāyatul Muftī:
After collecting a zakah amount, there is leeway for paying the person
from it for his services of collecting, even if he is a rich person.2
Maulānā Khālid Sayfullāh states:
1 Imdād al-Muftīyyīn, vol. 2, p. 451; Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 9, p. 319; Jadīd Fiqhī
Masā'il, vol. 1, p. 221; Fatāwā Dār al-Ulūm Deoband, vol. 6, p. 46; Imdād al-Ahkām,
vol. 2, p. 25.
2 Kifāyatul Muftī, vol. 4, p. 286.
198

Those who are employed for the collection of zakah and 'ushr ('āmilīn-
e-zakāh) are occupied in preserving the rights of the poor. In the same
way, there can be a need for other workers for the calculations,
account keeping, distribution, etc. of the collected zakāh. The jurists in
general have not delved into this subject. However, 'Allamah Qurtubī
rahimahullah has written in this regard:
الحادي عشرة: ودل قوله تعالى: "والعاملين عليها" على أن كل ما كان من
فروض الكفايات كالساعي والكاتب والقسام والعاشر وغيربم فالقائم به يجوز
ل أخذ الأجرة عليه. (الجامع لأحكام القرآن: ١٣(٨، دار الكتب العلمية)
... If we were to think about it carefully, then the broad meaning of the
word 'āmilin does not refer to the collectors only. Rather, those who
are involved in the collection and distribution of zakah are also
included in it.1
Islāmī Fiqh:
In many cases, goods are sent by rail, bus or air. Should the freight
charges be paid from zakah funds or not? Some 'ulama' are of the view
that it should not be paid from the zakah funds.2 However, I am of the
view that it is permissible to pay the freight charges from the zakah
money. If we obtain the services of a builder to construct a house for a
poor person, or we give him the goods bought with zakah money to
convey it to the house, and we do not pay him from the zakah money
for his services, the house will neither be built nor the goods
conveyed ... The reason why it is not against tamlik (ownership) is that
we will bear all the expenses and give it to an eligible person. Its status
is therefore not as a rental/freight, but as a payment of the amount. If
we send zakah through a money-order and we pay the fees for the
money-order with zakah money, it is not against the rule of tamlīk
because all this is done to convey the amount to the poor person.3
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
1 Islām Kā Nizām-e-Ushr wa Zakāh, p. 115.
2 Fatāwā Dār al-Ulūm, vol. 6, p. 335; Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 9, p. 483; Fatāwā
Rahīmīyyah, vol. 2, p. 10; Fatāwā Farīdīyyah, vol. 3, p. 397.
3 Islāmī Fiqh, vol. 1, p. 473.
199

Deducting government tax when paying zakäh
Question
Tax is an obligatory due to the government. A person did not pay it
until such time that it is now the time for him to pay his zakah. Will
this tax amount be deducted from his assets or does he have to pay
zakah on the entire amount? In other words, is tax an obstacle to the
obligation of zakāh?
Answer
If tax from the government becomes due, and the amount is specified,
e.g. he is informed that he is liable to pay 50 000 in taxes for his shop,
then this is a debt which will be deducted from his assets. Zakah will
then be calculated on the balance. If the shop-owner or company
owner makes efforts to have the tax reduced to 30 000, and saved
20 000, he must pay the zakah on 20 000 later on because this amount
has been excluded from the debt.
Hāshiyah at-Tahtāwī:
وسببها أي سبب افتراضها أي الزكاة ملک نصاب حولي تام فارغ عن دين له
مطالب من جهة العباد سواء كان لله كزكاة وخراج أو للعبد ولو كفالة أو
مؤجلاً ولو صداق زوجته المؤجل للفراق أو نفقة لزمته بقضاء أو رضي بخلاف
دين نذر وكفارة وحج لعدم المطالب.
قوله لم مطالب أي بالجبر والحبس وقوله من جهة العباد أي طلباً واقعاً من
جهة عبد وبو إما الإمام في الأموال الظابرة ... أو الدائن في دين العباد.
(حاشية الطحطاوى على الدر المختار: ١٣٩٠)
Sharh al-'Ināyah:
وأما النوائب فهي ما يلحق من جهة السلطان من حق أو باطل أو غير ذلك
مما ينوب أنها ديون في حكم توجه المطالبة بها. (شرح العناية على الهداية:
٧٩٢٢)
200