After surveying the pros and cons of permitting financial dues in addition to zakah, we find that their differences are not as great as one may think. They all agree on certain points:

A. The obligation to provide for needy parents.

B. The obligation to spend on provisions for other needy relatives, although there are differences as to the degree of relation included in this obligation.

C. The obligation to provide for the deprived who are in desperate need of food, clothing, or shelter. In his Ahkam al Qur'an, al Jassas says, "The obligation is generally zakah, except when certain things happen that require other payments, such. as necessity of food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, or funerals for the deceased."1 Similar to this is lending buckets, cooking pots, or axes to those in dire need, since prevention of harm is a collective obligation on all Muslims according to ijma'.

D. The obligation to pay for public necessities such as defending Muslim land, freeing Muslim captives taken by unbelievers, and curing diseases and relieving from famines. This is agreed upon unanimously by Muslim scholars. In Sharh al Minhaj, al Ramli says, "Among the collective obligations [furud al kifayah] are the requirement to prevent harm to Muslims including providing clothing to the clotheless and food to the hungry if zakah funds and public treasury funds are not sufficient. This requirement is obligated on those who have excess above their yearly needs. Moreover, the amount of help must equal, according to the most accepted view, the provision of sufficiency and not merely subsistence. Similar to food and clothing are necessities such as medical cars and other necessary services."2

It is mentioned in part four that al Nawawi, a Shafi'ite, believes providing for the regular army is the duty of the country's rich, besides zakah payment. Ibn al 'Arabi in his Ahkam al Qur'an, adds, "If zakah is practiced, and some further need arises, the rich must be obligated to provide for this need by unanimous agreement. Malik says, 'Muslims are all obligated to provide for freeing their prisoners of war, even if this were to take all their wealth.' Moreover, if a governor, by an act of oppression, does not distribute the already-collected zakah, the rich must still provide for the needs of the poor, according to the view I think most correct."3 In his explanation of the Qur'an, al Qurtubi emphasizes the same: "Scholars are in agreement that if a need arises after the distribution of zakah, funds must be collected and used for that need."4 In his al I'tisam, al Shatibi concludes, "If the public treasury is empty and the needs of the army for funds are still not satisfied, a just government can impose on the rich taxes sufficient to provide for these needs, until the treasury has funds again."5

All these are clear statements that there are agreed upon cases in which financial duties may exist in addition to zakah. Amazingly enough, those quotations are from scholars known to believe that there are no other financial duties besides zakah, which reveals that what they mean by this position is the prevention of oppressive and unneeded taxes usually imposed by rulers and used for their own pleasures and those of their supporters. However, this does not mean there are no real differences between the two parties.

The areas of real difference can be summarized as follows:

A. The due right on agriculture at the time of harvesting.

B. Dues on livestock.

C. The right of the guest.

D. The right to neighborly help.

All these are considered obligations by the believers in other financial duties besides zakah while they are viewed as desirable acts of benevolence by the opponents, except in the case of necessity, as stated by al Jassas: "Lending these tools (like the bucket, cooking pot, and axe) may be obligatory in case of necessity, when refusal to lend is a cause for blame and punishment. But refusal to lend in cases where there is no dire necessity is only a sign of bad manners and low morality that is not supposed to be a trait of Muslims, since the Prophet (p) says, 'I was revealed to in order to complete the good moralities.'6"7

E. The most important point of difference is the right of the poor to be taken care of out of the wealth of the rich, which is called for by scholars who believe that there exist duties besides zakah.

These areas of dispute require study in order to discover the correct position.

A. The right of the poor to agricultural produce at the time of harvest was studied in part three of volume one, and it was concluded that this right, though mentioned in a Makkan verse, is in fact the Ushr, which is zakah itself. The early ordinance in the Makkan verse proclaims the general obligation, whose details come later in Madinah.

B. As for the right of the guest, it is apparent from the texts that this means the stranger guest traveling in an area where he knows nobody. This is almost the same as the wayfarer, that Ibn 'Abbas and several Followers even explain that the wayfarer is the guest.8 The sayings explicity state that the guest's right is to be offered food and shelter.

This is indeed different from zakah.

C. Extending neighborly help is undoubtedly obligated and its refusal is a cause for woe and severs censure. This due is also different from zakah.

D. As for the right of the poor to be taken care of from the wealth of the rich, it is a matter so well-known in Shari'ah that the verses or sayings about it need not be quoted.

However, scholars usually give special attention to the verse "It is not righteousness . .

." and to the saying, "There are on wealth rights besides zakah" because these two texts are extremely explicit and to the point in laying down this principle. It is directly derived from the basic foundations of Islam and from the very nature of its system.

Mutual solidarity, cooperation, care, and mercy are basic features of the Islamic system.

They all implicate that the strong must help the weak and the rich must care for the poor.

Neglecting this obligation amounts to basic deviation from this religion and its teachings.

A man from the tribe of Tamim once came to the Prophet (p) and said, "O Messenger of God, I am a man with plenty of wealth, big family, and I am well-established. Tell me, how should I spend, and what should I do?" The Prophet (p)

said, "Pay your zakah, for it is a purifier that cleanses you. Extend aid to your kindred, and know and fulfill the right of he who asks, the neighbor, and the indigent."9 The Messenger (p) established a right to the kindred, he who asks, the neighbor, and the indigent, over and above zakah, which is consistent with the verse, "And give the kindred his right: so also the indigent and the wayfarer," and the saying, "He who asks has a right, even if he happens to come riding on a mare."10

The Messenger of God (p) says, 'He who shows no mercy to others, God will show him no mercy,"11

From all texts of Qur'an and Sunnah presented as argument by the opponents of financial dues beside zakah. It is clear that zakah is distinct from all other financial duties on wealth. Zakah is the only permanent, regular, and well-defined financial obligation due from the rich. It must always be paid, regardless of the existence or non-existence of poor and needy in the society. It is performed as a worship to God and an act of thankfulness for the graces He bestowe on the rich. It is a purification and sanctification of the zakated assets as well as the souls of their owners.

As for other financial obligations, such as dues collected to support the poor in case of inadequacy of zakah proceeds, these obligations are temporary ad measured only by the amount of need. Consequently, they differ according to circumstances. These obligations are not necessarily individual but collective, in the sense that if the needs are provided for by some of the richest payers, others may be exempted. One must not forget certain exceptional cases, in which such a collective obligation becomes individual and specific, like when there exists only one rich person available to extend help.

Ibn Taimiyah comments on the statement 'There are no other dues imposed on wealth besides zakah':

It means no dues except zakah are imposed only for the reason that wealth or assets are owned. Indeed, other dues are imposed on the rich, but not simply because of owning assets, such as provision for the living expenses of wives, slaves, owned livestock, needy parents and other relatives, paying due debts, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. The latter is a collective and not individual obligation. These financial obligations are imposed for other reasons, such as family relation or the presence of dire necessity, but owning wealth is a necessary condition for their levy. Thus, owning wealth to these obligations is like being able to procure means of travel to pilgrimage: Pilgrimage is obligated only on each Muslim who is able to perform it. As for zakah, it is obligated by reason of owning wealth, and must be performed regardless of the need for its dispersement. It is a right due to God."13