| At-Tawbah: (60) "Zakah expenditures are only for the poor..."

After He—the Exalted—mentioned the hypocrites, their disparagement, and their discontent, He clarified that the actions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were for the reform of the religion and its people, not for personal objectives like theirs. He—Glory be to Him—said: "Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and the needy..."—meaning: The one to whom the wealth of Allah should be distributed is he who possesses one of these descriptions, and no one else, for the intention is reform, and the hypocrites possess nothing but corruption, so they do not deserve it. In this is a severance of their empty greeds and a refutation of their false assertions.

"Zakah" (Sadakat) here refers to the obligatory Zakah, thereby excluding other forms of voluntary charity.

A "poor person" (Faqir), according to what is narrated from Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him), is one who possesses a small amount—less than the Nisab (the minimum threshold for Zakah) or the value of a Nisab that is not growing/productive and is absorbed by [essential] needs. A "needy person" (Miskin) is one who possesses nothing at all, such that he is in need of asking others for his sustenance, which is what covers his body; this is permissible for him, unlike the first, for whom asking is not permissible, as it is not allowed for one who possesses their daily sustenance after covering their body.

According to some, it is not permissible for one who is capable of earning or who possesses fifty dirhams. Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa'i reported from Ibn Mas'ud that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever asks of us while he has what suffices him, he will come on the Day of Resurrection with his asking as scratches or wounds on his face." It was said: "O Messenger of Allah, what suffices him?" He said: "Fifty dirhams or their value in gold." Al-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak, Ahmad, and Ishaq followed this view. Others said that whoever possesses forty dirhams is forbidden from asking, based on what Abu Dawud reported from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever asks while he possesses the value of an uqiyah, he has begged persistently." An uqiyah at that time was forty dirhams.

It is permissible to distribute Zakah to one for whom asking is not permissible, provided he is poor. Ownership of many Nisab amounts that are not productive does not remove him from poverty if they are absorbed by his needs. Therefore, they said: A scholar may take Zakah even if he possesses books worth many Nisab amounts, if he is in need of them for teaching and the like, unlike a layman. The same applies to all the tools of craftsmen.

According to what is narrated from the Imam, the Miskin is in a worse state than the Faqir. This is evidenced by the words of the Exalted: "or a needy person in misery (dhā matrabah)"—meaning, he has pressed his skin to the dust in a pit where he hides instead of a garment, and his stomach is pressed to it due to extreme hunger. This denotes the utmost harm and severity, whereas the Faqir is not described as such. Furthermore, al-Asma'i, Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala, and other linguists interpreted Miskin as one who has nothing, and Faqir as one who has a bare sufficiency of life.

It was answered that the validity of the argument from the verse depends on the description being an expositional (Kashifah) descriptor, which contradicts the apparent meaning, and that the transmission from some linguists is opposed by the transmission from others. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The Faqir is one who has neither wealth nor earnings that suffice his needs, and the Miskin is one who has wealth or earnings that do not suffice him. Thus, according to him, the Faqir is in a worse state than the Miskin. He argued with the verse: "As for the ship, it belonged to poor people (Masakin)"—as it attributed a ship to the Miskin. He also used what At-Tirmidhi narrated from Anas, and Ibn Majah and Al-Hakim from Abu Sa'id, that they said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "O Allah, grant me life as a poor person, let me die as a poor person, and gather me among the group of the poor." Added to this is what Abu Dawud narrated from Abu Bakrah, that he (peace and blessings be upon him) used to pray: "O Allah, I seek refuge in You from disbelief and poverty." (The report "Poverty is my pride" is a lie with no basis). He further argued that Allah—the Exalted—presented the Faqir first in the verse; if his need were not greater, He would not have begun with him. Also, Faqir is derived from faqar (the vertebrae of the backbone), meaning the breaking of the backbone, hence he is worse off.

The first [point] was answered by saying the ship did not belong to them; rather, they were hired hands on it, or it was loaned to them, or they were called Masakin out of pity, as in the Hadith "The poor (Masakin) of the people of Hellfire," or his saying: "The poor of the people of love, even their graves have the dust of humiliation upon them among the graves." This is more appropriate.

Regarding the second: The poverty from which refuge is sought is none other than the poverty of the soul, for it is narrated that he (peace and blessings be upon him) used to ask for chastity and wealth, and wealth here means wealth of the soul, not an abundance of worldly goods.

Regarding the third: The [fact of] precedence provides no evidence, as it has many considerations in their speech.

Regarding the fourth: We do not concede that Faqir is taken from faqar, as it is possible it is derived from faqarta (I have cut a vertebra for you) from my wealth when I severed it, so he possesses something. Regardless, they are two classes. Al-Jubba'i said: They are one class, and the conjunction is for a difference in the concept. This is also narrated from Muhammad and Abu Yusuf. The benefit of the disagreement appears if one bequeaths a third of his wealth, for example, to so-and-so and to the poor (Fuqara) and the needy (Masakin); whoever says they are one class gives half to so-and-so, and whoever says they are two classes gives him a third.

"(And the collectors of it)"—they are those whom the Imam sends to collect it. In Al-Bahr, it is stated that the collector includes the 'Ashir (tax-taker) and the Sa'i (worker). The former is he whom the Imam appoints on the road to take charities from merchants passing by him with their wealth. The latter is he who strives among the tribes to collect charity on livestock in their locations. The collector is given what suffices him and his assistants in the middle-range, during the period of their travel to and fro, as long as the wealth exists, unless his sufficiency exhausts the Zakah, in which case he is not given more than half, for classification is the essence of fairness.

According to Al-Shafi'i, he is given an eighth, because the division necessitates it, but this is debatable. He limited it to the middle-range because it is not permissible for him to follow his desires in food, drink, and clothing, as that would be pure extravagance. According to the Imam, he should send someone who is satisfied with the middle-range without extravagance or stinginess, and [the payment is contingent on] the wealth remaining; if he takes the charity and it is lost from his hand, his wages are voided. He is not given anything from the Bayt al-Mal (Public Treasury), and what he takes is charity. Hence they said: Working for Zakah is not permissible for a Hashimite due to his honor, and it is only permissible for the wealthy [to take it for work] despite the prohibition of charity for him, because he has devoted himself to this work and thus requires sufficiency, and wealth does not prevent him from taking it in case of need, like the wayfarer. This is in Al-Bada'i. The verification is that this has an aspect of wages and an aspect of charity. By the first consideration, it is permissible for the wealthy—hence he is not given it if the owner of the wealth pays it to the Imam [directly]—and by the second, it is not permissible for the Hashimite. In An-Nihayah: A man from the Banu Hashim was employed for charity, and a provision was allotted to him from it; he should not take it, but if he works for it and is provided from elsewhere, there is no harm. This implies the validity of his appointment, and that his taking from it is detested (makruh), not prohibited. In Al-Ghayah, it is explicitly stated that it is not valid for the collector to be a Hashimite, a slave, or a disbeliever. From this, the prohibition of appointing Jews to certain works is known; a summary of the discussion on this has preceded.

"(And those whose hearts are to be reconciled)"—they were three classes: a class whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would reconcile so that they would become Muslims; a class who had embraced Islam but were weak in faith, such as 'Uyaynah ibn Hisn, Al-Aqra' ibn Habis, and Al-'Abbas ibn Mirdas al-Sulami, whom he (peace and blessings be upon him) would give to strengthen their intention in Islam; and a class who were given to repel their evil from the believers. Included among them is the one whose heart is reconciled by giving some charity for fighting the disbelievers and those who withhold Zakah.

In Al-Hidayah, it is stated that this class is among the eight classes but has lapsed, and the consensus of the Companions was established on this during the Caliphate of the Truthful (As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him). It is narrated that 'Uyaynah and Al-Aqra' came asking for land from Abu Bakr, so he wrote a document for it, but 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) tore it up and said: "This is something the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave you to reconcile you. As for today, Allah has strengthened Islam and has no need of you. If you remain on Islam, [well and good], otherwise the sword is between us and you." They returned to Abu Bakr and said: "Are you the Caliph or 'Umar?" He said: "He is, if he wishes," and agreed with him. None of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) denied this, despite the possibility of mischief in it, such as some of them apostatizing and stirring up a revolt.

People have differed in explaining the way it lapsed after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), after having been established by the Book until his death (may my father and mother be sacrificed for him). Some undertook the view of the permissibility of abrogating what is established in the Book by consensus, based on the fact that consensus is a definitive proof like the Book; this is not correct according to the Madhhab. Others said: It is of the category of the ending of a ruling with the ending of its cause, like the ending of the permissibility of fasting with the ending of its time, which is the day. This was refuted by saying that the ruling of baqa' (remaining) does not require a cause, as in raml (brisk walking) and idtiba' (exposing the shoulder) in tawaf; their ending does not necessitate its [the ruling's] ending, and this is open to discussion.

'Ala' al-Din 'Abd al-'Aziz said: The best is to say: This is a confirmation of what was in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in terms of meaning. The purpose of giving to them was the strengthening of Islam because of its weakness at that time due to the dominance of the disbelievers, and the strengthening was through giving. When the situation changed with the dominance of Islam, the strengthening became through withholding. Giving in that time and withholding in this time are like the instrument for strengthening the religion, and strengthening is the intended goal; it remains in its state, so this was not abrogation. Like the one performing tayammum who is required to use dust for purification because it is an instrument determined for achieving purification in the absence of water; when his situation changes and he finds water, the first drops and it becomes obligatory to use water because it has become determined for achieving the goal, and this is not an abrogation of the first. So it is here. It is like the obligation of blood money (diyah) on the 'aqilah (relatives); it was obligatory on the kin in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and after him on the people of the diwan (official registry), because the obligation on the 'aqilah was due to the need for support (nusrah), and support in his time (peace and blessings be upon him) was through the kin, and after him through the people of the diwan. Obligating them was not abrogation, but confirmation of the meaning for which the diyah was obligated, which is support. This was deemed good in An-Nihayah.

Ibn al-Humam countered this by saying that this does not negate abrogation, because the permissibility of giving to them was a legal ruling that was established and has since been removed. Some researchers said: That is abrogation, and it is not said that "abrogating the Book by consensus is not permissible" on the sound view, because the abrogator is the proof of the consensus, not the consensus itself, based on the principle that there is no consensus except based on a source; if it appears, then good, otherwise it must be judged that it is established. Moreover, the verse to which 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) pointed, which is the saying of the Exalted: "And say, 'The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills—let him believe; and whoever wills—let him disbelieve,'" is suitable for that. This is debatable, as it only holds if it were proven that the revelation of this verse was after the other, which is not proven.

Some people said: The share of this class has not dropped. This is the view of Az-Zuhri, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Ali, and Abu Thawr; it is also narrated from Al-Hasan. Ahmad said: They are given if the Muslims are in need of that. Some said: The "reconciled hearts" are Muslims and disbelievers, and what dropped is the share of the disbelievers only. It is verified that he (peace and blessings be upon him) used to give them from the "fifth of the fifth," which was his own private wealth (peace and blessings be upon him).

"(And for the freeing of slaves)"—meaning for expenditure in the freeing of necks, by assisting the mukātabūn (slaves with a contract of freedom) with some of it to pay their installments. It is said: by purchasing slaves to set them free. It is said: by ransoming captives. The first view is held by An-Nakha'i, Al-Layth, Az-Zuhri, and Al-Shafi'i; it is what is narrated from Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and it is the view of the majority of jurists. The second view is held by Malik, Ahmad, and Ishaq, and Al-Tayyibi attributed it to Al-Hasan. In the Tafsir of Al-Tabari, the first is the one narrated from him.

"(And those in debt)"—those upon whom there is debt. Paying to them, as in Az-Zahiriyyah, is preferred over paying to the poor. They restricted debt to being in a cause other than disobedience, such as alcohol or extravagance in what does not concern him. However, Al-Nawawi said in Al-Minhaj: "I say: The most correct view is that one who became indebted for disobedience is given if he repents." This was deemed correct in Ar-Rawdah. The one who prevents it absolutely said: "Repentance might be feigned to take the money." They stipulated that they should not have what they can use to pay off their debt beyond their needs and the needs of those they support; otherwise, the mere existence of debt does not prevent entitlement. This is one of two views among the Shafi'is and is the most apparent.

It is said: It is not a condition [that they possess nothing], due to the generality of the verse. Al-Quduri and the author of Al-Kanz among our scholars spoke generally about the indebted person in the chapter on expenditure, while in Al-Kafi he restricted it to not possessing a Nisab in addition to his debt. He mentioned in Al-Bahr that this is the intended meaning of "debtor" in the verse, as in the language, he is one who has debt and cannot find the means to pay, as Al-'Utbi mentioned. He apologized for the lack of restriction by saying that poverty is a condition for all classes except the collector and the wayfarer—if he has wealth in his homeland, he is like the poor. Whether the debt must be due or not is a matter of two views among the Shafi'is.

According to them, one who went into debt for the sake of reconciling people is given—for example, if he fears strife between two tribes that quarreled over a slain person whose killer was not identified, or was identified, and he gave the blood money to settle the strife. He is given even if he is wealthy, absolutely. It is said: If he is wealthy in liquid assets, he is not given.

"(And in the way of Allah)"—intended by this, according to Abu Yusuf, are those cut off from the warriors, and according to Muhammad, those cut off from the pilgrims. It is said: The intended meaning is seekers of knowledge, and this was limited to in Al-Fatawa az-Zahiriyyah. In Al-Bada'i, it is interpreted as all acts of obedience, so it includes everyone who strives in the obedience of Allah the Exalted and the paths of goodness. In Al-Bahr, he said: "It is not hidden that the condition of poverty is necessary for all views; therefore, its fruit does not appear in Zakah, and only appears in wills and endowments." End quote. In An-Nihayah: If it is said that his saying the Exalted "And in the way of Allah" is redundant, whether the cut-off warriors or others are intended, because either he has wealth in his homeland or not—if he does, he is a wayfarer, and if not, he is poor—so from where does the count become seven as the companions say, or eight as others say? It is answered that he is poor, but something else has increased in him besides poverty, which is being cut off in the worship of Allah—from Jihad or Hajj—and thus he differs from the absolute poor, for the restricted differs from the absolute inevitably. The effect of the difference also appears in another ruling, which is the increased encouragement and motivation to show regard for his side. Since this is so, the avenues of expenditure are not less than seven. This is open to reflection. End quote. Its perspective is not hidden.

Some mentioned that the verification is what Al-Jassas mentioned in Al-Ahkam: that whoever is wealthy in his city with his house, servants, and horse, and has surplus dirhams such that charity is not permissible for him, if he intends to travel for Jihad and needs equipment and weapons which he did not need in his residence, it is permissible to give him from charity even if he is wealthy in his city. This is the meaning of his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: "Charity is permissible for the wealthy warrior." So understand and do not be negligent.

"(And the wayfarer)"—he is the traveler cut off from his wealth. Borrowing for him is better than accepting charity, as in Az-Zahiriyyah. In Fath al-Qadir, it is stated that it is not permissible for him to take more than his need. He added to him everyone who is away from his wealth, even if he is in his city. In Al-Muhit: If he is a merchant who has a debt owed by people which he cannot collect, and he finds nothing, it is permissible for him to take Zakah because he is poor [by] hand, like the wayfarer. In Al-Khaniyyah, there is a detail in this position: He said: "Whoever has a deferred debt owed by a person, if he needs sustenance, it is permissible for him to take Zakah to the extent of his sufficiency until the maturity of the term. If the debt is not deferred, and the one who owes the debt is insolvent, it is permissible for him to take Zakah according to the soundest views, because he is in the position of the wayfarer. If the debtor is wealthy and acknowledges it, it is not permissible for him to take Zakah. Likewise, if he denies it and he has just witnesses against him; if they are not just, it is also not permissible for him to take [it] until he raises the matter to the judge, who then makes him swear; if he makes him swear, it is permissible for him to take it after that." The intended meaning of debt is what reaches the Nisab, as is not hidden. In Fath al-Qadir: "If he gives to a poor woman who has a dowry debt owed by her husband reaching a Nisab, and he is wealthy such that if she demanded it, he would give it, it is not permissible; but if he is such that he would not give it if she demanded, it is permissible." This is a restriction on the generality of what is in Al-Khaniyyah. The intended meaning of dowry is what is customarily hastened, for what is customarily deferred is a deferred debt that does not prevent taking Zakah. In the first case, not giving it is equivalent to his insolvency. The difference between it and other debts is that raising the husband to the judge is something a woman should not do, unlike other cases. However, in Al-Bazzaziyyah: "Giving Zakah to his sister while she is under a husband—if her hastened dowry is less than the Nisab, or more but the husband is insolvent, he may give her the Zakah. If he is wealthy and the hastened [portion] is the amount of the Nisab, it is not permissible according to the two [Imams], and this is what is decreed for precaution. According to the Imam, it is permissible absolutely."

The shifting from lam (the letter lām, meaning "for") to fi (the letter fī, meaning "in") in the last four, according to what Al-Zamakhshari said, is to signal that they are more firmly rooted in the entitlement of charity than those previously mentioned, because fi is for container-like capacity, which indicates their inclusion in it and their being its location and center. Based on this, lam is for mere specialization. In Al-Intisaf: There is another, more apparent and closer secret, which is that the first classes are possessors of what may be paid to them, and they take it by way of ownership, so the entry of lam was appropriate for them. As for the last four, they do not possess what is distributed towards them, nor is it distributed to them, but it is distributed in interests related to them. The wealth distributed in the freeing of necks is only received by the masters, the mukātabūn, or the sellers, so their share is not distributed to their hands such that it could be expressed by lam, which indicates their ownership of what is distributed towards them; rather, they are locations for this expenditure and its related interests. Likewise, the debtors—their share is distributed to the owners of their debts to clear their obligations, not to them. As for "in the way of Allah," this is clear. As for the wayfarer, it is as if he was included in "the way of Allah," and he was singled out for mention to alert to his specificity, even though he is free of both letters together. Conjoining him to the genitive with lam is possible, but conjoining him to the nearest is closer.

What he pointed to regarding the mukātab not owning, and that the owner is the master, is what some of our companions pointed to. In Al-Muhit, they said: "It is not permissible to give Zakah to a Hashimite mukātab, because ownership occurs for the master from one aspect, and the doubt is attached to the truth in their regard." In Al-Bada'i, there is what is apparent that ownership occurs for the mukātab, and in that case, the rest of the four are even more so.

The famous view is that lam is for ownership according to the Shafi'is, which is what their school necessitates, as they said: "It is necessary to distribute Zakah to all classes if they exist, and it is not distributed to one class, for example, nor to less than three of each class, but to three or more if that exists." With us, it is permissible for the owner to give Zakah to each of them, and he may restrict it to one class, because the intent of the verse is to state the classes to whom payment is permissible, not to mandate payment to them. This is evidenced by his saying the Exalted: "But if you conceal them and give them to the poor, it is better for you," and that he (peace and blessings be upon him) received wealth from charity and placed it in one class, which was "those whose hearts are to be reconciled," then he received other wealth and placed it in "the debtors." This indicates that it is permissible to restrict to one class. The evidence for the permissibility of restricting it to one person of it is that the plural defined by Al (the definite article) is a metaphor for the genus; if one swears not to marry women or not to buy slaves, he breaks the oath by one. So the meaning in the verse is that the genus of charity is for the genus of the poor, so it is permissible to distribute to one, because [the interpretation of] complete coverage is not straight, for the meaning would become "every charity is for every poor person," which is clearly false. And there is no convention there to invoke a specific reference, nor does the phrase "renounce me for what is in my hand of dirhams" apply, nor "nothing in her hand," for it would require three [dirhams]. If he swears not to speak to him for days or months, it falls on ten according to the Imam, and on a week and a year according to the two Imams, because it is possible to [have a specific] reference, so it is not carried on the genus. The result is that carrying the plural on the genus is a metaphor, and on the reference or complete coverage is a reality, and there is no room for the latter except upon the impossibility of the original. On this, the bequeathed [amount] is halved for Zayd and the poor, like a bequest to Zayd and a poor person.

What we have gone to is what is narrated from 'Umar and Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), and it is the view of Sa'id ibn Jubayr, 'Ata', Sufyan al-Thawri, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Malik (may Allah have mercy on them). Ibn al-Munir mentioned that his grandfather, Abu al-'Abbas Ahmad ibn Faris, used to extract from the difference between the two aforementioned letters a proof that the purpose is to state the destination, and lam is for that. He says: The attachment of the genitive [phrase] acting as a predicate for Sadaqat is omitted; so either the estimation is "charity is distributed to the poor," as Malik and those with him say, or "owned by the poor," as Al-Shafi'i says. However, the first is certain, because it is an estimation sufficient for both letters together, and the attachment of lam and fi together to it is valid; so it is valid to say "this thing is distributed in this" and "for this," unlike the estimation of "owned," for it only fits with lam, and upon reaching fi it requires the estimation of "distributed" to fit with it. So its estimation from the beginning is general in attachment, including validity, and is certain. End quote. In sum, the strength of the three Imams' source in adopting this is not hidden.

For this reason, the Shafi'is chose what they went to. The father of the distinguished Al-Baydawi, 'Umar ibn Muhammad—who was the Mufti of the Shafi'is in his era—used to issue fatwas according to it.

"(An obligation from Allah)"—a verbal noun (masdar) emphasizing an omitted one, taken from the meaning of the speech, meaning: He obligated charity for them as an obligation. It is narrated from Sibawayh that it is in the accusative by its implied verb, meaning: Allah the Exalted obligated that as an obligation. Abu al-Baqa chose that it is a state (hal) from the pronoun hidden in his saying the Exalted "for the poor," meaning: Charity is existent for them in the state of being an obligation—that is, obligated. It is said: The ta (the feminine marker) entered it to attach it to nouns, like natiyah (a goat slaughtered by a horn strike).

"(And Allah is Knowing)"—of the states of people and the levels of their entitlement.

"(Wise)"—He does nothing except what wisdom necessitates from the good affairs, among which is directing rights to those who deserve them.