Fiqh Al Zakah by Dr. Yusuf al Qardawi

Since zakah is calculated in the same zakated items (camels are taken out of camels, fruits from fruits, and money from money) the question arises whether it is permissible to give the value of what is due as zakah instead of payment in kind. On one side, we find jurists who allow payment in value without any reservations. These are led by the Hanafites. Scholars led by the Shafi'ites and Zahirites do not accept payment in value. In between, Malikites and Hanbalites accept payment in value in certain cases, and do not approve of it in other cases.

It is maintained in Mukhtasar Khalil that payment in value does not suffice. Ibn al Hajib and Ibn Bashir go along with this view. The author of al Tawdih states that this is not consistent with al Mudawwanah, in which it is stated that payment in value is undesired only.1 Ibn Naji in Sharh al Risalah quotes Ashhab and Ibn al Qasim saying that payment in value is permissible.2 The author of al Mudawwanah notes, "I would think payment in value would be accepted by God if the payer is obligated to do so by the government, since in disputed matters, the government's selected practice becomes binding on all."3

As for Hanbalites, the author of al Mughni says it appears that Ahmad believes payment in value unsatisfactory because it is a violation of Sunnah. However, there is a report that Ahmad approves of it, except with zakah of al fitr.

All these differences can be attributed to the different angles from which jurists perceive zakah as either a worship or a tax on wealth. Those who require payment in kind argue that since zakah is a worship, it can only be done the very same way detailed in the sayings, therefore payment must be made in the same zakated item. On the other hand, Abu Hanifah, his disciples, and others allow payment in value on the grounds that it makes no difference as far as relieving the poor is concerned.5

Those who do not approve payment in value bring forth the following arguments:

1. Al Juwaini, a Shafi'ite, argues that since zakah is one of the rites of worship it must be done exactly the way we are ordered, because only God knows best the way He wants to be worshiped. Zakah is the sister of prayers. No one can make any change in the format or sequence of prayers, and by the same token, no one may pay money when sayings state pay a female camel or a sheep.6

2. This is further emphasized by the judge Abu Bakr bin al 'Arabi, a Malikite, who says, "The test of paying zakah is not realized in mere reduction (by giving away some)

of total wealth - - as Abu Hanifah thinks - - but requires reducing the quantity of each and every item of zakatable wealth, in order to break the payer's sentimental attachment to each and every item he or she owns. Payment in kind is obligated on its merit."7

3. Since zakah is meant to relieve the diverse needs of the poor, diversity of assets paid is an important convenience for the poor. It is also a sign of thankfulness and gratitude to God to give others from the very same assets He bestowed on the payer.8

4. On top of all this is the saying reported by Abu Daud and Ibn Majah that the Prophet (p) told Mu'adh when he sent him to Yemen, "Take grain out of grain goat out of goat, camels out of camels, and cows out of cows."9 This is a text that must not be violated by payment in value.

Hanafites and other scholars who allow payment in kind present the following arguments:

A. God says, "Out of their wealth take a sadaqah." This is a general text which is satisfied by payment in value. The Prophet's explanation that one sheep is due for every forty sheep is made only for facilitating collection from owners of livestock and does not restrict the general ordinance of God. In the desert and countryside where livestock owners often live, it is difficult to find money in large quantities.

B. Al Baihaqi reports, as does al Bukhari (as suspended), that Taus says, when Mu'ad was in Yemen, he said, "Give me garments or cloth as payment of sadaqah. This is easier for you and better for the migrants in Madina." In another version, "Bring me cloth materials to take from you in place of corn and barley . . . ."11 It was known that Yemen had flourishing textile industry at that time and it was easier for Yemenis to pay in cloth. Also, Yemen had excess zakah that used to be sent to Madinah. Mu'adh's declaration tells us that he himself did not understand the Prophet (p) to mean literally that grain must be collected out of grain and sheep out of sheep. Rather, the Prophet mean to make things easier for payers, so this is an order to the collector to accept what he is given out, at the convenience of the payer. This is supported by the report that in paying recompense for a killing by mistake, the Prophet (p) allowed cloth producers to make payment in cloth.12

C. Ahmad and al Baihaqi report that the Prophet (p) saw an adult female camel among the camels taken as sadaqah. He was angered because it was too good and said, "May God assail whoever took this camel." The collector said, "O Messenger of God, I exchanged it for two lesser-quality camels." The Prophet said, "Then it is all right." This saying is acceptable as far as its chain and its indication are concerned.13 It also indicates that paying zakah in value is permissible as the taking of an adult female camel for two lesser quality camels could only be based on their values.

D. Zakah is meant to enrich the poor, satisfy their needs, and finance public services important for the Muslim community as well as Islam itself. This is done as well by payment in value as by payment in kind. It may even be more convenient to collect value than to collect goods and merchandise.

E. It is unanimously permissible to pay an item of the same kind of zakated asset which is not of the zakatable items themselves, such as paying purchased wheat instead of the produced wheat itself. Why not permit, by the same logic, paying zakah in the form of another product? This is in answer to the argument of Ibn al 'Arabi, mentioned in number two above.

F. Sa'id bin Mansur reports in his Sunan that 'Ata says 'Umar bin al Khattab used to take money as sadaqah on business inventory.14

After reflecting on the arguments of the two groups, it seems that the Hanafites succeed in their view. They are supported both by texts and practices of the Companions, as well as by rationality. In fact, the analogy between zakah and prayer, though valid in that both are pillar of Islam, is absolutely inadequate when it comes to mode of payment. This is supported by Hanafite's opponents themselves, because they obligate zakah on the wealth of minors and insane persons, although such individuals are not required to pray.

The Hanafite opinion is also more suitable to contemporary economic life. It is easier in calculation, collection, and distribution. If we imagine a governmental body collecting and distributing zakah, payment in value would save many storage and transportation expenses. This opinion is also attributed to 'Umar bin 'Abd al 'Aziz, Al Hasan, Sufian, and a report from Ahmad.15 Al Nawawi says "This is apparently the view of al Bukhari, as shown in his correct collection."16 Ibn Rushd comments, "Al Bukhari, though he very often disagreed with the Hanafites, takes their same view on this issue.

He was indeed lead by the strength of evidence."17 In his correct collection, Al Bukhari titles a section "Payment in value as permissible", under which he mentions the report about Mu'adh from Taus,18 as well as sections of Abu Bakr's letter in which twenty dirhams or two sheep substitute for one year's difference in age of camels.

Ibn Hazm undergrades the report of Taus on the grounds that Taus did not meet Mu'adh, and says even if it were said by Mu'adh it is not binding on us, because it does not come from the Prophet (p), and because it may be in reference to jiziah and not zakah.19 These objections are invalid, since Taus, though he did not meet Mu'adh, was the leading scholar of Yemen in the Followers' era, and the practices of Mu'adh in Yemen are very well known to him. Also, Ahmad Shakir comments that the version of Mu'adh's statement reported by Yahya bin Adam explicitly mentions the word sadaqah, so this report is not about jiziah.

Ibn Taimiyah takes a middle stand on this matter, very similar to that which I take.

He says, "Payment in value without need or convenience is not permissible. The Prophet stipulates payment in value in case of need, for example, to make up for the difference in ages of camels. But paying in value out of necessity, convenience, justice, or for the benefit of the poor is allowed; Ahmad himself permits it. It is for these reasons that Mu'adh asked for payment in value in the above report."20