Those whose hearts are being reconciled include persons who have recently been brought to Islam, or who need to strengthen their commitment to this faith, and individuals whose evil can be forestalled or who can benefit and defend Muslims.

The very presence of this category as recipients of zakah emphasizes the fact that zakah is not personal charity or merely a worship left to individual practice. Distribution to this category is not, by nature, a job that individual acting independently can undertake. It is a political decision made by the decision-making body of the state. Only the state can determine the need at a given time for reconciling hearts and the qualifications of deservants under this title.

A. One group in this category is that of individuals who are close to becoming Muslims, or whose clans may become Muslim, like Safwan bin Ummayyah who was granted safety by the Prophet the day Makkah was conquered. The Prophet gave him so many camels loaded with goods after the battle of Hunain that he said, "This is the giving of one who fears not poverty." Muslim and al Tirmidhi report from Sa'id bin al Musayyib from Safwan his statement, "By God, when the Prophet gave me, he was the person I hated most. He continued to give me until he became my most beloved person."1 Safwan became a committed Muslim. Ahmad reports, via a correct chain, from Anas that "Never was the Messenger of God (p) asked to give anything for accepting Islam but he gave it. A man once came and asked to be given something for accepting Islam. The Messenger ordered him to be given enough sheep to fill the distance [between two hills] from the sheep collected as sadaqah. The man went back to his clan saying, 'O my folks, accept Islam, for Muhammad gives like one who fears not poverty."2

B. The second group includes those who may do harm to Muslims, to whom giving zakah stops them from hurting Muslims. Ibn 'Abbas narrates that certain people came to the Prophet who, if they are given sadaqat, praise Islam and declare it a good religion, but if not, malign Islam.3

C. The third group consists of individuals who have just embraced Islam, to whom giving helps them be steadfast. When al Zuhri was asked, who comprise those whose hearts are being reconciled? he said, "Whoever embraces Islam from among the Jews and Christians." He was then asked, "Even if they were rich?" "Even if they were rich," he answered.4 Al Hasan answered a similar question by saying, "They are individuals who embrace Islam."5 It is understandable that persons who embrace Islam may have to make several sacrifices and may be persecuted, ostracized, or even threatened financially by the communities in which they live. Such a person is undoubtedly in need of support and encouragement.

D. Also in this category are prominent Muslims whose social status is respected by disbelievers who have status in their own communities, such that giving these Muslims encourages their non-Muslim counterparts to consider embracing Islam. It is said that Abu Bakr's giving to Adi bin Hatim and al Zibriqan bin Badr, who were obviously committed Muslims, is of this nature.6

E. Muslim leaders whose faith is shaky can be given zakah in this category. Such individuals may have great influence on Muslims, and giving them generously could strengthen their faith and commitment. An example is the Makkans who were given generously by the Prophet after the battle of Hunain.7

F. Muslims giving on the borders of a Muslim country who are expected to defend Muslim land against any attack from enemies.

G. Muslims whose influence is needed in the zakah collecting process to persuade would be rebels to pay their zakah. By using such influence, the government avoids having to fight those who reject paying zakah.8

Al Shafi'i says those whose hearts are being reconciled include newcomers into Islam, and that disbelievers must not be given sadaqah. He argues that the gift of the Prophet (p) to some disbelievers after the battle of Hunain was not from zakah, but either from fay' or the Prophet's personal property. Al Shafi'i adds, "God makes it mandatory that the zakah of Muslims be rendered to Muslims and not to disbelievers.9

The Prophet told Mu'adh zakah was '. . . to be taken from the rich among them and rendered to the poor among them.'" Al Razi in his commentary quotes al Wahidi as saying, "God does not make Muslims in need of reconciling the hearts of unbelievers. The head of state may find it beneficial to Muslims to reconcile the hearts of some individuals. This is only permissible if those individuals are Muslims, since it is not allowed to extend zakah to unbelievers. Unbelievers whose hearts must be reconciled can be given from fay' and not sadaqat." Al Razi comments, "The statement of al Wahidi may give the impression that the Prophet gave unbelievers zakah, but such a thing never happened. However, the verse of zakah distribution nowhere specifies that the hearts being reconciled are those of unbelievers, since the term 'those whose hearts are being reconciled' may include Muslims as well as non-Muslims."10

By the same token, since the term used in the Qur'an includes Muslims and non- Muslims, there is no reason for restricting it to Muslims. Unbelievers may be reconciled from zakah. Qatadah says "Those whose hearts were reconciled were often pagan bedouins whom the Prophet (p) used to reconcile through giving zakah in order to bring them to faith.11 In the saying from Anas quoted earlier about the man to whom the Prophet gave sheep from zakah and who returned and said to his clan, "Accept Islam; Muhammad gives like one who fears not poverty," it appears he was not Muslim before being given. Granting unbelievers zakah in order to bring them to Islam, is, according to al Qurtubi, "a form of jihad." "Unbelievers are three kinds: those who understand reason and dialogue, those who do not and must be conquered, and those who can be reconciled by generosity and benevolence. The Muslim state should deal appropriately with each group."12

Ahmad and his disciples believe the ruling on heart reconciliation is permanent, which is the opinion of al Zuhri and Abu Ja'far al Baqir.13 It is also taken up by the Ja'fari and Zaidi schools.14 Yunus says "I asked al Zuhri about this matter, and he said he knew of no change in this ruling," Abu Ja'far al Nahhas comments, "Accordingly, the ruling on heart reconciliation is firm. Whenever there is a need for reconciling a person's heart, he [or she] may be given zakah." Al Qurtubi quotes al Qadi 'Abd al Wahhab--a Malikite--as saying, "If such persons are needed sometimes by the state, they may be given zakah." Likewise, al Qadi Ibn al Arabi remarks, "The way I see it, if Islam becomes strong, this group of recipients becomes null, but if they are needed, they may be given their share, the same way the Messenger of God (p) used to give them. It is correctly reported that "Islam started atypical and unique and will again become as atypical and unique as it started."15 It is mentioned in al Nil and its commentary--Abadi--that "this category is dropped as long as the state is strong and in no need of reconciling people, but reconciling is permitted when need arises, to avoid harm to Muslims or bring them benefit."16 Al Nawawi quotes al Hasan as saying, "Today there must be no reconciliation of hearts from zakah."17 al Sha'bi says,"Those whose hearts are to be reconciled were a group at the time of the Prophet (p) which, when Abu Bakr took charge, came to an end."17 Al Nawawi quotes al Shafi'i as saying, "If unbelievers are reconciled, they must only be paid fay' and not zakah, since the latter must not be given to non-Muslims." As for reconciling Muslim's hearts, al Shafi'i is reported to disallow giving them after the state of Islam becomes strong; the second view says it is permissible to give them the same way they were given by the Prophet.18

As for Malikites, they also have two opinions, one allowing and one disallowing giving this group zakah.19 Hanafites believe there must be no giving for reconciliation after the death of the Prophet, (p). This, according to al Kasani, is the correct and authentic view, because the Companions were unanimous on that count. Both Abu Bakr and 'Umar did not give anything from zakah funds to reconciling hearts, and none of the Companions disapproved of this. It is reported that upon the death of the Messenger of God, individuals who were given zakah for reconciling their hearts asked Abu Bakr to document this in writing. Abu Bakr did so, and they went and showed it to 'Umar, whereupon 'Umar grabbed the document and tore it up, saying, "Indeed, the Messenger of God (p) used to give you in order to reconcile you to Islam, but today God has strengthened this religion. If you remain steadfast in Islam, [it is well and good] but if you do not, there is nothing between us but the sword." They left him and ran to Abu Bakr, complaining, "Is the Khalifah you or 'Umar?" Abu Bakr replied "He is if he so wishes, " and approved of 'Umar's action. Al Kasani adds "this was known to the bulk of the Companions, and none disapproved. This becomes a unanimous ijma'.

In fact, the two points of al Kasani are incorrect. The ruling is not annulled, and the need to reconcile hearts has not ceased. The action of 'Umar does not indicate annulment of this category, since those whose hearts were reconciled in a certain era may not be needed in another era. At each time, the determination of the need to reconcile hearts and the specification of individuals to be included is decided by the executive authority according to what benefits Islam and Muslims.

Scholars of usul affirm that the dependency of a ruling on a defined element is an indication that the element is the cause of the ruling. The spending of zakah in the case on hand depends on the need for reconciliation of hearts. This indicated that reconciliation is the reason for payment. Consequently, whenever the need for reconciliation exists, payment is permissible, and vice versa. At a given time, the process of reconciling certain persons may be finished, and the step taken by 'Umar would then be taken, the same way that zakah workers would not be paid if at one point there were no workers of zakah. That does not mean this category is eliminated from future consideration. 'Umar did not annul payment to 'individuals whose hearts are being reconciled' nor was there an ijma' on such annulment. He simply judged that there were no deservant in that category at that point in time.22 The statement of al Hasan and al Sha'bi that "today there are no individuals who are being reconciled, " is understood similarly as a fact of the age they lived in.

Annulment of a ruling enacted by God can only be made by God through revelation to His Messenger, and therefore can only take place during the time of the Message.

Annulment is dictated only when two authentic texts of Qur'an or Sunnah totally contradict each other and we know that one of them came after the other chronologically. The question on hand has only one, affirmative text, which determines this category as a recipient of zakah. There is no text which contradicts this Qur'anic verse. How can annulment be attributed to a verse in the Qur'an without a text from the revelation? Al Shatibi writes, "Rulings of Shari'ah, after they are confirmed, cannot be claimed null except by confirmed, authentic evidence, since the ruling were initially obligated by completely authentic evidence. This is why scholars unanimously agree that a correct but single-chain saying cannot annul Qur'an or sayings narrated by a group, because the single-chain narration, though authentic and correct, is not absolutely confirmed like narration by groups."23 Needless to say, the sayings and doings of a Companion cannot annul Qur'anic-texts, especially since the action of the Companion on hand does not even signify annulment. Ibn Hazm, even before al Shatibi, says, "It is not permissible to any Muslim who believes in God and the Last Day to claim that anything in Qur'an or Sunnah is annulled without affirmative evidence, because God says, "We sent not an apostle but to be obeyed In accordance with the will of God"

The claim that there is no more need for heart reconciliation after the spread of Islam and the establishment of its state is rejected for the following reasons:

1. Some Malikites assert that the reason for giving a person whose heart is being reconciled is not that person's benefit to Muslims, but rather, bringing that person closer to Islam and breaking the barriers that may be hindering him from opening his mind to Islam. In other words, the purpose of the payment is to save the payee from the fire of Hell.30 Thus, this payment is a form of calling for Islam [da'wah] that may be effective with some people. It is the obligation of Muslims to help others seek the guidance of God and lead them out of the darkness of ignorance and the agony of disbelief that leads to Hellfire. A person may convert to Islam for material gains, but once he or she starts understanding this religion, he or she may embrace it whole-heartedly. Abu Ya'la reports from Anas that "A man came to the Messenger of God (p) embracing Islam for some earthly gain, not accepting Islam except for that purpose, but by nightfall Islam became more beloved to him than the whole earth and what is on it." And in another version, "A man asked the Prophet (p) for some earthly material gain for which he would embrace Islam . . . " and so on.31

The above applies when the person whose heart is being reconciled is an unbeliever, but not all who are given under this title are unbelievers. Some may have embraced Islam very sincerely, but are oppressed and persecuted by their communities. Giving them is a required relief; it encourages them on the path of truth and supports them while their faith is still tender.

2. The claim that there is no longer need for heart reconciliation is based on the erroneous assumption that reconciliation is only done when the Muslim state is weak.

This is an unnecessary restriction and an unrealistic assumption. In contemporary politics, we observe that strong states, like the United States, provide help to poor states in order to reconcile these small and weak states to the objectives of the government of the United States. Al Tabari says in this regard that "God makes zakah fulfill two objectives, namely satisfying the needs of Muslims and strengthening the cause of Islam. The cause of Islam covers rich and poor alike, since what is given for this purpose is not aimed at erasing destitution, but at strengthening commitment to Islam.

Fighters for the sake of God are given zakah regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

Payments to those whose hearts are being reconciled are made regardless of their wealth, because giving them is supporting the call of Islam. The Prophet (p) gave zakah for reconciliation of hearts after God had opened for him most of Arabia and after the Islamic state was well-established. There is no support in Sunnah for those who claim that after the strengthening of Islam and its state there is no need for reconciling hearts."

Decisions regarding reconciling hearts are the duty of the Islamic state. The Prophet (p) and his Successors affirmed this responsibility as part of the state's executive affairs.

If the state does not fulfill its responsibility in collecting and distributing zakah, Muslim organizations can make decisions about distributing to individuals whose hearts are being reconciled.34 If the government does not undertake this duty, nor are there organizations that distribute zakah, can a Muslim individual who distributes his own zakah use part of it for reconciling an unbeliever's heart? In my opinion, a Muslim individual must not make decisions concerning heart reconciliation, except in the very rare case where no other destination of zakah is available. Such a case may apply to Muslims living in non-Muslim countries, although it is preferable even under such circumstances to dispose of zakah for the spread of Islam or to send it to the poor and needy in Muslim countries.

If we agree that reconciliation of hearts by payment from zakah is permissible, to whom should this share be given today? In order to answer this question, we must remember that the purpose of this share is to bring hearts closer to Islam, affirm their commitment to its cause, support the weak, and prevent harm that could be inflicted on Muslims or on their religion. These objectives could be achieved by giving aid to non- Muslim countries, persons, organizations, and tribes, to bring them closer to the cause of Islam. It could also be extended to support research, and utilize mass media that teaches the religion of Islam and defends its cause against attackers. Many people enter into the fold of this religion every year who do not find encouragement or support from their governments and communities or even from the governments of Muslim countries. The share of heart reconciliation can be expended to such people, an idea consistent with the opinions of al Zuhri and al Hasan. Christian missionaries spend millions every year for the spread of their religion, although theirs does not have an institution like zakah devoted to this purpose. It is true that Islam spreads on its own merit because of its inner persuasive power, but it is equally true that most of those who embrace Islam in non- Muslim countries do not receive even nominal support or compensation for the sacrifices they make when they embrace Islam. There are many Islamic organizations that attempt to fill this gap but are desperate for financial support, especially in areas like Africa and many poor countries.

It is always possible that the Muslim state appropriate some of its funds derived from sources other than zakah, for the purpose of heart reconciliation, if the other categories of zakah recipients can hardly be satisfied with the total proceeds of zakah. This is consistent with the opinion of al Shafi'i that payments for heart reconciliation to unbelievers must be made from sources other than zakah.