Fiqh Al Zakah by Dr. Yusuf al Qardawi

Other scholars, as early as the era of the Companions and Followers, believe there are other financial dues besides zakah. These include 'Umar, 'Ali, Abu Dharr, A'ishah, Abu Hurairah, al Hasan bin 'Ali, and Fatimah bint Qais (all Companions), as well as the Followers al Sha'bi, Mujahid, Taus, 'Ata, and several others.

These people argue that the verse "It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces toward east or west, but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last Day, and the angels, and the Book, and the messengers, to spend of your sustenance -- in spite of your love for it -- for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves, to be steadfast in prayers and practice zakah to fulfill the pledges which ye have made, and to be firm and patient in pain and adversity, and through out all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God fearing" indicates there are dues besides zakah. Al Tirmidhi and others report from Fatimah bint Qais that she (or someone else) asked the Prophet (p) about zakah. He answered, "Indeed there are dues besides zakah on wealth." Then the Prophet recited this verse from sura al Baqarah: "It is not righteousness . . . ." Despite its weakness, al Tirmidhi says this saying is supported and strengthened by the verse. In fact, the verse alone is sufficient evidence, since it makes giving money one of the conditions of righteousness, in addition to prayers and zakah. Al Qurtubi comments, "Even despite the criticism addressed to the saying, its meaning remains correct, because it is implied by the verse itself, which reads' . . . to be steadfast in prayer and practice zakah.' It mentions zakah along with prayers, which means the words at the beginning of the verse '. . . to spend of your sustenance' refer to other payments, not included in the word 'zakah'.

Otherwise, this verse would have unnecessary repetition.1

No one can argue that the spending mentioned in the verse refers merely to voluntary contributions, since the verse was revealed as a reply to the Jewish vogue for formality and ritualism, to show the elements of true righteousness. Thus the verse lists only basic elements, as is obvious from the other elements mentioned in the verse: believing in God and the Last Day, and practicing prayer and zakah, fulfilling pledges and contracts, etc. etc..

Abu 'Ubaid strongly rejects al Dahhak's claim that this verse is annulled because zakah annuls every other sadaqah mentioned in the Qur'an. Abu 'Ubaid comments, "Such a very daring claim has no substance or supporting evidence. The words of God cannot be annulled by people's claims. If al Dahhak's claim were correct, a phrase in the verse, 'Practice zakah,' must have annulled another phrase in the very same verse, 'spend out of your sustenance.' Such a thing is not possible!"2 Moreover the verse gives information about the character of the righteous, and verses which give information relating to creed or basic beliefs are not subject to annulment. Abu 'Ubaid reports from Ibn 'Abbas that "This verse was sent dow in Madinah at the time when obligations, penalties, and other behavioral requirements were being revealed."3

After describing the bounty God produces for mankind, including gardens with trelisses, dates, grains, pomegranates, olives, etc. God says "Eat of their fruits in their season, but render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered. But waste not by excess, for God loves not the wasters."4 It is argued that this "proper due" is different from zakah on the following grounds:

A. The verse is Makkan and it was sent long time before 'ushr was obligated during the Madinan period.

B. The verse orders giving the due that is proper on fruits on the day of harvest. This is not the time of zakah payment, since 'ushr is paid after cleaning and drying of the produce.

C. The concluding sentence in the verse "Waste not by excess . . ." is inapplicable to zakah which is an amount defined by Shari'ah and unsusceptible to extravagance or excess.5

Any claim that the proper dues mentioned in this verse were later annulled by zakah cannot be substantiated, because annulment cannot be supported by mere probability and claims. Ibn Hazm adds, "Any person's claim of annulment can only be substantiated by a text linked to the Messenger of God (p). Otherwise, anyone could claim the annulment of any verse or saying. To say any text is annulled is equal to saying that the obedience to this text of God is not needed. This can be done by the Legislator alone."6

He continues, "What then is the proper due ordained by the above-mentioned verse? It is undoubtedly different from zakah. It requires that owners give on the date of harvesting some of their produce. The verse, however, does not require any definited amount or percentage. This is the opinion of some of the predecessors."7

In explaining this due, Ibn 'Umar says, "They used to give something besides zakah" 'Ata says "Whoever is present at the harvest must be given some of the produce. This is not zakah." Mujahid says, "The present poor persons must be given some of it." He adds, "At the time of planting they should be given something like a handful, and at the time of harvesting they should also be given." Ibrahim says "the poor should be given a bunch of the produce."8 Similar statements are attributed to Abu al 'Aliyah, Sa'id bin Jubair, 'Ali bin al Husain and al Rabi' bin Anas.9 Ibn Kathir says "God censures those who harvest and do not give charity, as in the story of the owners of the garden in sura al Qalam."10

We discussed earlier the issue of whether this proper due is zakah or not. What is important here is to assert that some great Companions, like Ibn 'Umar, and Followers like 'Ata, Mujahid, and al Nakha'i believe this verse speaks about a due on wealth besides zakah.

We have several authentic sayings that describe the prescription of dues on camels and horses. Al Bukhari reports from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (p) said, "Camels whose proper dues are not given appear on the Day of Resurrection against their owner the strongest they have ever been, trampling him with their hooves , and sheep whose proper dues are not given appear before their owner the strongest they have ever been, trampling him with their hooves and knocking him with their horns." The Prophet (p)

adds, "One of their dues is to milk them when they come to water [and to give away that milk]."11 Apparently, the last sentence of the saying covers both camels and sheep, especially since in a version of the saying reported by Muslim and Abu Daud, the same sentence comes just after the talk about camels.12 It is obvious that this sentence is part of the saying and is not added by the narrator. Al Bukhari reports the last sentence alone in reference to sharecropping in another chapter.13

Al Nasa'i reports from Jabir, "The Messenger of God (p) says, 'He who owns camels, cows, and sheep who does not give their dues, will be made to stand for them on the Day of Judgement on a flat ground, and then the animals with hard hooves will trample him, and those with horns will knock him with their horns. On that Day, none of them shall have its horns broken or cut off.' We asked, 'O Messenger of God, what are their proper dues?' He answered, 'To lend the male for breeding, to lend the bucket (drawer)

for watering, and to give rides on them in the way of God. . . .,"14 A similar saying is reported by Muslim from Jabir.15 In another saying , the from Jabir, the Messenger of God (p) was asked, "What is the proper due of camels?" He said, "To slaughter the fat among them [for charity] to lend the male for breeding, and to milk them [for the poor] on the day of watering."16

Al Sharid says, "A man came to the Prophet (p) asking him about camels. The Messenger of God (p) said, 'Slaughter the fat among them [for charity], and give rides on the strong and fast among them and milk them [for the poor] on the day of watering.'"17

These sayings all indicate that the dues mentioned are obligatory. They are all different froms zakah. Ibn Hazm says, "It is obligatory on each owner of camels, cows, and sheep to milk them on the day they are watered, and to give what pleases him out of that milk for charity."18 He continues, "whoever claims there are no rights in addition to zakah is wrong and has no base for his claim from either a text or ijma'. Everything that is prescribed by the Prophet (p) on wealth must be taken as obligatory. As for lending the bucket and the male for breeding, they are covered by the verse, '. . . but refuse to supply even neighborly needs.'"19

There are also correct reports about dues on horses, such as that of al Bukhari from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of God(p) said, "Horses for one man are [a source of] reward, for another a means of sustenance, and for a third man a reason for guilt. He for whom they are a source of reward is the man who devotes them to fighting for the sake of God . . . they are a source of satisfaction for he who keeps them for personal use and as property without forgetting the right of God on them and their back-riding; for he who keeps them as a matter of pride, hypocrisy, and for fighting Muslims, they are a reason for sin."20

We have correct saying that mandate a guest's right on a host from Khuwailid bin 'Amr. The Messenger of God (p) said, "He who believes in God and the Last Day must honor his guest. The guest's right is [to be hosted] one day and one night, and the kindness to the guest is [hosting him] three days. What is above that is a charity."21 This indicates that honoring one's guest is obligatory, since it is related to the essence of faith, especially since what is above three days is considered charity.

In another saying from 'Abd Allah bin 'Amr, "Your body has a certain right on you, your eye indeed has a right on you, your guests indeed have a right on you, and your wife indeed has a right on you."22 The right of guests is further emphasized in another saying from Abu Hurairah, "Any guest who appears among any people and remains deprived until morning has the right to take as much as his food would be, without any blame."23 Al Miqdad bin Ma'dikarib narrates that the Messenger of God (p) said, "If a man hosts a guest, and the guest gets up in the morning still deprived, the guest's aid and support is the duty of every Muslim until the guest takes from the host's grain and wealth the equivalent of his food for the night,"24 and "The food for night for the guest is obligatory on each Muslim host . He who has guests in his house and does not offer them food, it remains a debt on him."25 Ibn Hazm says, Muslim reports from 'Uqbah bin 'Amir "We asked, 'O Messenger of God (p), you send us on certain missions and we stay overnight as guests of certain people, but they do not offer us food, so what do you see?' The Messenger of God replied, 'If you bed down at the houses of some people and they offer you whatever is suitable for guests, you should accept, but if they do not, then take from them the right of the guest that is obligatory on them.'" Ibn Hazm adds that al Bukhari reports from 'Abd al Rahman bin Abu Bakr "The Companions of al Suffah were poor people. The Prophet said, 'He who has food for two people must take with him a third one. He who has food for four people must take a fifth, and he who has food for five must take with him a sixth,' or whatever the Prophet said. Accordingly, Abu Bakr brought home with him three men and the Messenger of God brought ten." These sayings indicate beyond any doubt that there is an emphasized right on the wealth of a Muslim host, to the extent that if this right is not given the whole Muslim community is called upon to help the guest obtain his right. Clearly enough, this right is not zakah. The guest may come anytime while zakah is obligated at definite times. Ibn Hazm says, "Offering food to the guest is an obligation on all Muslims, urban or bedouin, knowledgeable or ignorant; one night out of righteousness and three days out of kindness; what is beyond that is not obligatory, although it is encouraged. If a host withholds this due from the guest, the guest has the right to take it by force or through the court."26

Al Shawkani adds, "Scholars have several opinions on whether the right of the guest is obligatory or only encouraged. The majority believes that honoring guests is one of the good manners that are encouraged, while al Laith says it is obligatory on the host for one night only. The majority argues that the saying 'He who believes in God and the Last Day . . . ' encourages only and does not oblige."27

As for the majority's answer to the sayings about the right of the guest, al Shawkani notes:

Al Khattabi says "The right of the guest was obligatory at the time of the Prophet (p), when there was no state treasury that took care of guests, but guests must not have any right on individual Muslims' wealth. Some others argue that this was only at the beginning of Islam but not after it was well established..."28 The truth is that honoring and offering food to guests must be obligatory for the following reasons: First, whoever does not offer the guest food is made punishable by these sayings, and penalty can only be inflicted for neglecting an obligation. Second, we must note the extreme emphasis in the saying on taking care of guests and the consideration of this action as related to faith. Third, the sentence in the saying "what is beyond that is charity" explicitly means that what is less than three days is not charity but obligation. Fourthly, the sentence, "The night of the guest is an obligatory due" is also an explicit prescription. Fifth, the sayings obligate other Muslims to aid and help the guest in order to secure his or her right. This gives the guest's right even more certainty . .. Once these points are granted, one realizes that the view of the majority is not substantiated. Thus the sayings that obligate caring for guests must be understood as restrictions of the general sayings that prohibit taking anything from Muslims without their consent. It is arbitraty to say the sayings about guests mandate mere sustenance of guests. By the same token, restricting the applicability of these sayings to bedouins in the desert is also baseless.29

The Qur'an severely warns those who do not extend help to others. God says, "So woe to the worshipers who are neglectful of their prayers, those who want but to be seen by people, but refuse to extend even neighborly help."30 Abu Daud reports from Ibn Mas'ud, "We understood extending neighborly help at the time of the Messenger of God (p) to mean lending the bucket and the cooking pot."31

Extending these small services is obligatory, because the Qur'an says "woe" to those who refuse to do it, equating it with neglecting prayers or loving to be seen by people.

Such a severe warning cannot be given if this action were not obligatory. No doubt, extending such help is not included in zakah, so it must be an added obligation. Ibn Hazm reports from Ibn Mas'ud, "'Extending neighborly help' is giving what people used to borrow from each other, like the axe, the cooking pots, and similar things."32 He reports that Ibn 'Abbas explains "neighborly help" as "Lending household things," and in another version "Lending things."33 Ibn Hazm also reports from 'Ali34 and Umm 'Atiyah, "It is the help in household matters that is usually exchanged by people."35 He also reports that Ibn 'Umar explains refusing to extend neighborly help as "The refusal to give the right due on wealth." Ibn Hazm adds, "This is consistent with what is mentioned earlier and with the views of 'Ikrimah, Ibrahim, and others. It is not known that any of the Companions disagreed on this matter."36

One must mention that Ibn Mas'ud's statement mentioned above has the same weight as a saying, because he gives the interpretation of the verse prevalent at the time of the Prophet (p), and if that interpretation happened to be incorrect, it would have been corrected by the Prophet or by the Revelation itself, as a mistake in understanding the Qur'an.

There are several texts which overwhelmingly dictate that Muslims must cooperate in good doing, solidarity, and mutual help and support, and have mercy among themselves. There are texts that obligate feeding the indigent as a duty implied by brotherhood, faith and religion. God says, "And help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancor."37 He describes the believers as "Compassionate amongst each other,"38 and describes the path that one must follow to deserve reward from God: "But he hath made no haste on the path that is steep (and narrow), and what will explain to thee the path that is steep? It is freeing the bondsman, or giving food on a day of privation, to the orphan with claims of relation, or to the indigent down in the dust. Then will he be of those who believe and enjoin patience (constancy and self restraint), and enjoin deeds of kindness and compassion. Such are the companions of the right hand."39 "And render to the kindred their due rights, and also to those in want and to the wayfarer,"40 and "and to good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer, and what your right hands possess."44

Many verses exhort people to feed the destitute, considering such an act of benevolence a sign of faith and its neglect an implication of disbelief and denial of the Hereafter, such as "Seest thou one who denies the Judgement? Then such is one who repulses the orphan with harshness and encourages not the feeding of the indigent."42

"They [unbelievers] will say 'We were not of those who prayed, nor were we of those who fed the indigent'"43 and "This was he who would not believe in God most High, and would not encourage the feeding of the indigent."44 The Messenger (p) describes the mutual solidarity, caring, and security of the Islamic society in several sayings: "The believer to the fellow believer is like a structure whose blocks are bound to [and streghthen] each other,"45 "The example of Muslims in their mutual love, compassion, and mercy is like one single body. If one of its members aches, the other members respond with fever and insomnia,"46 "He is not a believer who goes to sleep satiated while his neighbor besides him is hungry."47 'Ali narrates that the Prophet said, "Indeed, God prescribes on wealthy Muslims in their wealth contributions as much as satisfies the poor. The poor shall not suffer from hunger and nakedness except from repulsion by the rich. Verily God shall make the account difficult for them and punish them a severe punishment."48

In his al Muhalla, Ibn Hazm strongly supports the view that besides zakah, there are other financial dues. He provides several arguments and quotes from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Companions, and Followers, and concludes, "God ordains the rich of each city to take complete care of the poor in that city. If zakah proceeds are not sufficient and there is no available fai' to be used, the government must force the wealthy to spend on the poor. There must be assignments for food, clothes for winter and summer, and shelter that protects them from rain, heat, sunshine, and the eyes of passers-by." His argument goes as follows:

A. From the Qur'an God says, "And render to the kindred their due right, and also to those in want and to the wayfarer,"48 and "And do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer, and what your right hands possess."50 Thus God imposes a due to the indigent and the wayfarer along with the right of the kindred, and prescribes good doing to parents, kinsfolk, needy, neighbors, and slaves. Good doing requires taking care of their physical needs. Refusing to take such care is undoubtedly wrong and sinful. In another verse God explains the reason for dwelling in Hell: "What led you into Hellfire? They will say, 'We were not of those who prayed, nor were we of those who fed the indigent'."51 God, here, associates feeding the needy with obligatory prayers.

B. From the sayings The Messenger of God is reported, through several chains all excellent in correctness, to have said, "He who has no mercy toward people shall not receive mercy from God."52 Whoever has excess wealth and sees his Muslim brother hungry, naked, or lost, and does not extend help, is undoubtedly merciless. 'Abd al Rahman bin Abu Bakr says "The Companions or al Suffah were poor people, and the Messenger of God said, He who has food for two must take with him a third, and he who has food for four must take with him a fifth, or a sixth.'"53 Ibn 'Umar narrates that the Messenger of God (p) said, "A Muslim is a brother of the fellow Muslim. He does not do him injustice or let him down."54 Leaving a Muslim to hunger or cold while one has the ability to feed and clothe him is certainly letting him down! Abu Sa'id narrates from the Messenger of God (p), "He who has an extra ride must give it to him who has no ride, and he who has excess food must give to him who has no food." Abu Sa'id continues, "and the Prophet mentioned the kinds of wealth that he liked to mention, so many kinds that we saw that none of us has a right to any excess."55 I believe there is unanimity among the Companions as stated by Abu Sa'id, about all that comes in this saying. Abu Musa narrates from the Prophet (p), "Feed the hungry and pay to release the captive."56

C. From Companions and Followers 'Umar says "If I still have ahead of me as much time as what is gone, I would take the excess wealth of the rich and distribute it among the poor migrants."57 'Ali says, "God prescribes on the wealth of the rich as much as is sufficient to satisfy the poor among them. If the latter suffer from hunger, nakedness, or exhaustion, it is because of privation by the rich. It is just that God ask them [the rich] the account on the Day of Resurrection and punish them for it." Ibn 'Umar says, "On wealth, there is a right besides zakah." 'A'ishah, al Hasan bin 'Ali, and Ibn 'Umar are known to have answered people who asked them for money "If you ask to pay for ransom of a heavy blood, or an overwhelming liability or depriving poverty, you have a right that is due." Abu 'Ubaidah and three hundred Companions on a journey were near the end of their provision of food, Abu 'Ubaidah ordered each individual's food be collected in two containers, and distributed equal rations to everyone. This represents an agreed-upon position of all these Companions, since none are known to have disagreed, We also have correct reports to the effect that al Sha'bi, Mujahid, Taus, and others all said, "There is a right on wealth besides zakah." We know of no one who opposes this except al Dahhak's comment that "Zakah annuls every other right on wealth." The narration of al Dahhak is not even approved of, let alone his own opinion!58 The fact is, all those who accept al Dakkah's view are the first ones to differ with it in actual life, since they all believe there are rights on wealth other than zakah, which include providing for needy parents, for one's wife, and for slaves, feeding domestic animals, and paying debts and other liabilities. Furthermore, such people say he who is in such need of water that he is at the verge of death for want of it, is obligated to take water wherever it is found, and even to fight anyone who prevents him that right. What is the difference between fighting to avoid death from thirst and fighting to prevent death from hunger and nakedness?

Indeed, the opponents' view is in opposition to ijma', Qur'an, Sunnah, and analogy.

It is not permissible for any Muslim in need of food to eat the flesh of dead animals or the meat of the hog, while there exists lawful food that is in excess above the needs of its owner, whether the owner is Muslim or of the people of the Pledge. It is obligatory for the owner of excess food to feed the hungry; he who is in need does not have to eat from hog meat or the meat of a dead animal. In such cases, the poor person is permitted to fight until his right is secured. If he is killed, whoever killed him is sinful and must pay the ransom and be subjected to the due penalty (death), but if his repulsor is killed, he goes to the wrath of God because he is an aggressor, and God says, "But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye all against the one party that transgresses until it complies with the command of God."59 For reasons similar to these, Abu Bakr fought those who refused to pay zakah.60