The Administration of the Zakah

[ابوالوليد المسلم]

The Administration of the Zakah (5/5)

Abu`l Hasan al-Mawardi


When the zakah has been apportioned to the eight categories, then they will necessarily be in one of five situations:
First, the payment made suffices them, there being no lack or surplus involved, in which case they cease to be entitled to the tax, and it is forbidden for them to make any further claim to it;


Second, the payment made is less than their need, and so they still have a claim to it, and the part owing to them is made up from another zakah-portion;


Third, it is enough for some but not for others, in which case the former cease to be entitled to it, while the rest remain entitled;


Fourth, it provides more than enough to meet the needs of all of them, in which case entitlement ceases for all, and the surplus from their portions is given to others who are entitled to it, living in the regions nearest to them;


Fifth, it provides more than enough for some of them, while not enough for others, in which case the surplus from the former is given to the rest until both groups have enough.


If one of the eight categories is lacking, the zakah is divided amongst those which exist, even if it is only one category. The portion of someone who is absent is not given to his like in the same category, except the portion allotted to those in the way of Allah: the whole is given to them, as they reside on the frontiers for the most part.


The zakah of each region is distributed amongst those of that same region, and it is not permitted to transfer the zakah of one region to another unless no categories entitled to it exist in it; if it is transferred and such categories exist, it cannot be accepted (from those who contribute), according to one of two opinions, while it can, according to another, and this is the madhhab of Abu Hanifah.


It is not permitted to give zakah to a nonbeliever, although Abu Hanifah permits the fitr-zakah paid at the end of Ramadan in particular to be paid to a dhimmi, but not a mu'aahid kafir (one permitted by special contract to reside amongst Muslims). It is not permitted to be paid to the family of the Prophet amongst the Bani Hashim, nor the Bani ' Abd al-Muttalib, in order to avoid their being tainted with the stain of wrong-actions (the zakah is paid as a purification from wrong actions), although Abu Hanifah permits payment being made to them. It is also not permitted to pay it to a slave, or a mudabbar slave freed on the death of his owner, or an umm walad slave who gives birth to the son of her owner, or to a partially owned slave. Moreover, a man may not give it to his wife, but she may give it to her husband, although Abu Hanifah forbids this. It is also not permitted for someone to pay his zakah to someone for whose upkeep he is responsible, be it a father or son, as they have no need of it in these circumstances - except from the portion of the debtors, if these latter figure amongst them; he is, however, permitted to give it to relations other than these, and it is preferable to give it to them rather than strangers, just as it is better to give it to neighbours rather than people who are distant. When someone subject to zakah brings his relations to the official in order to have his zakah paid to them, it is given specifically to them if his zakah has not been mixed with others' zakah; if it has been mixed up, his relations are treated in the same way as others; the collector must not, however, exclude them from it, as they have a greater and more particular right to it.


If the owner of wealth has doubts as to the official's use of his zakah and asks to oversee its distribution, he does not have to accept this request, as the owner has been freed of all further connection with it by his handing it over to him. Likewise, if the official asks the owner of the wealth to be present at its distribution, he does not have to be present, as he is freed of all connection to it by his handing it over. If the zakah perishes in the hands of the official before its distribution, the contribution of the owner of the wealth is acceptable (in the eyes of Allah), and the official is not liable, except in cases of fraud. If the zakah perishes in the hands of the owner of the wealth before it reaches the official, his zakah is not acceptable and he must give it again; if his wealth perishes before the zakah has been paid on it, then he is exempt from payment as long as it perished before there was any possibility of payment, but he is not exempted if it perishes after payment was possible. If the owner of the wealth claims that his goods have been destroyed before he has to submit it to zakah, his word is accepted, although if the official has any suspicions, he should make him swear an oath by way of confirmation.


The official may not take any bribes from the owners of wealth, nor receive any gifts from them. The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Making gifts to officials is fraud." The difference between bribes and gifts is that the former is what is taken after a request, while the latter is given voluntarily.


If any duplicitous behaviour on the part of the official manifests, it is up to the Imam, and not the owners of the property, to investigate him. Moreover, it is not up to those persons entitled to the zakah to engage in litigation against him, rather they should take their grievance to the Imam and make a complaint, in the same way as for any other abuse. Their testimony against the official is also not accepted, because of the suspicion that they have an interest in the matter. Testimony on behalf of the owners of the property against him is not entertained if it concerns the zakah taken from them, but it is if it is a matter of the official's misuse of it.


When the owners of property claim to have paid the zakah to the official, and the latter denies this, the former are made to swear an oath on their claim, in which case they are freed of all further liability; the official is also made to swear an oath on his denial, and is also exonerated. When some of the owners of the property bear witness in favour of one another, for example, that one of them has paid the zakah to the official, their testimony is not accepted if it is made after the parties involved have already made contradictory declarations and begun the dispute, although it is accepted if it happens before this, in which case the official is pronounced liable.


If, after the testimonies, he claims to have distributed the zakah amongst the various categories, his word is not accepted, as his previous denial (of having received the zakah) contradicts this affirmation; if the categories entitled to it bear witness that they have received their due from him, their word is not accepted, as it contradicts his denying having received it.


When the official affirms that he has received and distributed the zakah to those entitled to it, but the latter reject this, then his claim that he has distributed it is accepted, as he has been entrusted with it - although their denial of this is accepted if their state of poverty and need has remained unchanged.


The word of someone who claims poverty - and is thus entitled to the zakah - is accepted, while the word of someone who claims to be in debt is not accepted unless accompanied by proof.


If the owner of property states how much zakah he has to pay, but does not inform the collector of the amount of property he has, he may take this zakah from him on the basis of his affirmation, but must not compel him to bring the property before him.


If the official makes a mistake in his division of the zakah and gives it to someone who is not entitled to it, he does not become liable when the persons in question are wealthy, but their situation was not known. As for his liability when the situation of the persons in question is known, such as their being from among the family of the Prophet, or their being nonbelievers or slaves, then there are two opinions. If it is the owner of the goods who has made a mistake in the division, then he does become liable when it concerns the family of the Prophet, or slaves, whose situation is known; as for his liability concerning the wealthy, whose condition is not known, there are two views. There is more latitude given in any judgement regarding the exemption of the official from liability, as his participation in this affair is greater (than others), and his excuse for any mistake is all the more readily accepted.