Allocating Zakat Money for Political Campaigns

A Refutation of the Untenable Fatwā on the Permissibility of Giving Zakāt to the Non-Muslim for Political Purposes

By Darul Qasim College Faculty

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

We are addressing the specific question of whether zakāt can be used to support political campaigns of non-Muslims or Muslims in a non-Muslim land, and can zakāt be paid to non-Muslims? This is a position paper and is endorsed by those who have signed the document. They are all lecturers at Darul Qasim College.

Every legal opinion (fatwā) must consist of two interrelated components. The first is the intrinsic soundness of the legal ruling (ḥukm) itself. The second is the correctness of its application within the specific context under consideration. A ruling may be theoretically valid yet misapplied due to an inaccurate assessment of contemporary realities. Conversely, a sound contextual concern may be undermined by an unsound legal basis. Particularly in matters of ʿibādāt (worship), which is the purpose of human creation, both the integrity of the ruling based on revelation and the accuracy of contextual application must be carefully scrutinized.

Zakāt is not merely a financial obligation but an act of worship. As with all acts of worship, its regulation is governed by adherence to revealed statements (nuṣūṣ), and its parameters are therefore considered tawqīfī—fixed by revelation and not subject to unrestricted rational expansion. The primary objective of ʿibādah is servitude (taʿabbud). All other benefits or maṣāliḥ are secondary. This distinguishes ʿibādāt in general – and zakāt specifically – from financial dealings (muʿāmalāt). In muʿāmalāt juristic reasoning actively seeks facilitation and adaptability in light of changing circumstances. Financial dealings in themselves are not the objective; rather they facilitate human life to serve Allah. As such, any discussion concerning the allocation of zakāt must therefore proceed with heightened caution and strict discipline.

A utilitarian fatwā was recently issued by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) and the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) allowing for dispensing zakāt to political campaigns and even to non-Muslim politicians. This fatwā should be analyzed at several layers. The first issue is that the authors did not adduce a single sound hadith that shows that non-Muslims were ever paid zakāt. The authors acknowledge this, writing, “While some of these reports go beyond zakāt, and the most authentic of them concern ghanīmah and fay’ (types of spoils of war), some of them were cited by scholars who allowed giving zakāt to non-Muslims in comparable cases.” What is established through sound hadiths is that the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave some tribal leaders wealth from the spoils of war. This does not in any way prove that it is permissible to give zakāt to a non-Muslim. To the contrary, in the sound hadith the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Allah has made it obligatory on them to pay the zakāt from their property, and it is to be taken from their rich and given to their poor (Transmitted by al-Bukhārī and Muslim).” According to the apparent meaning of this sound hadith, zakāt is to be paid by Muslims to Muslims. The authors’ argument that the reports concerning the distribution of spoils of war to tribal chiefs shows the general principle of paying non-Muslims for political purposes is irrelevant. Anyone who has studied logic knows that a more general category does not indicate a more specific category specifically. The fact that something is an animal does not mean that the animal is a crocodile, for it could also be a cat. The question that occasioned the fatwā was not whether you can give money to a non-Muslim for a political purpose, which is not disputed, but rather “is it permissible to give zakāt for such purposes,” which is disputed. In short, the authors did not bring a single sound hadith that proves their claim that the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) paid zakāt to any non-Muslim or that it is permissible to do so, and the fact that you can give money to non-Muslims for political purposes in no way shows you can give them zakāt money.

Second, even if one grants the claims of some jurists that the Qurʾānic category of al-muʾallafah qulūbuhum (those whose hearts can be reconciled) included not only those who were new to Islam but also non-Muslims, this does not prove that this category remains. After the Prophet (Allah’s peace and blessings upon him) left this world, his successor Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) agreed to allocate a portion of zakāt to people known as al-muʾallafah qulūbuhum. ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) vehemently opposed giving money to this category, stating that this was done during the life of the Prophet (Allah’s peace and blessings upon him) when Islam was in its infancy, and now that Allah has strengthened Islam there was no longer any need to allocate any money for them. Abū Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) – the khalīfah (caliph) – and all other Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) confirmed this, agreeing not to allocate zakāt to this category anymore. In other words, there was tacit ijmāʿ (legal consensus) of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) that al-muʾallafah qulūbuhum will no longer receive a share from zakāt, whether Muslim or not. It is a historical fact that none of the Rightly Guided Caliphs paid zakāt to this category after ʿUmar’s decision. Based on this tacit ijmāʿ, most scholars after the four caliphs agreed that zakāt is not given to this category and asserted that the operative need underlying this category had ceased after the passing of the Prophet (Allah’s peace and blessings upon him). This is not merely an isolated opinion attributed to “some scholars” but is the predominant view held and implemented by the Ṣaḥābah (Companions, may Allah be pleased with them) and the scholars after them, and indeed it is the position of the Ḥanafī madhhab, the school of the majority of the Muslims in the world.

Third, even if one grants that the category is considered legally operative despite the understanding of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) —as some later scholars maintained that the decision of ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) was contextual to his time—the discussion must determine who, in principle, qualifies under the category of al-muʾallafah qulūbuhum, when they should be paid, and who has the right to pay them. As for who, is it only Muslims, or non-Muslims as well? The famous commentator of the Noble Qurʾān Imām al-Qurṭubī says that all those who were given zakāt as muʾallafah qulūbuhum were Muslim and not a single recipient was a non-Muslim. So if one says that the category of muʾallafah qulūbuhum can be reopened, this again would not justify giving it to non-Muslims. Even if one grants that non-Muslims could be eligible, the people the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) paid were real tribal leaders, not candidates for political authority. There is no certainty in any election, and the Prophetic precedent of paying real tribal leaders does not justify paying candidates for political authority, who might not be elected at all, in which case the payment would be a waste of money.

As for when, al-muʾallafah qulūbuhum were only paid at the beginning of Islam when there was an existential threat to the Muslim community and were no longer paid once there was no existential threat. Even if one grants that such payments can be made again, the only time when it would be certainly justified would be if there was a danger that Muslims would be wiped out totally, which is not the case. Non-Muslims have committed genocide against Muslims in individual geographies, but there is no threat for the Muslim community being wiped out as a whole, as was the case in the time of the Prophet (may blessings and peace be upon him).

As for who can pay them, there is no precedent for anyone paying them except the supreme ruler of all Muslims. Unlike ordinary Muslims who sometimes directly gave zakāt to the poor in the time of the rightly guided caliphs, only the ruler paid al-muʾallafah qulūbuhum, not individuals. And this makes perfect sense, since individuals are likely to disagree on who should be paid, which would severely hinder any utility in the payment itself, whereas the ruler can pool the funds together to make a significant impact. In contemporary circumstances—particularly where no unified Muslim political authority exists—no body or institution can meaningfully assume the functional role of walī al-amr (the ruler) in administering this category. As there is no official representative of the American Muslim community, organizations who do not represent the whole Muslim populace of the United States cannot self-assume representation and offer such fatwas as authoritative.

It will be observed by the careful reader that the document under review devotes comparatively little attention to these foundational questions, despite their centrality to the legal evaluation of the issue. Instead, the approach is purely utilitarian rather than a methodical examination of revelation and juristic evidence governing zakāt as an act of worship.

The assertion that this category has “all but been abandoned” is not, in itself, a compelling argument for its revival. The categories listed in the Noble Qurʾān represent permissible avenues for zakāt distribution, not mandatory ones that must be utilized at all times. Not every category must receive allocation in every era or locality. Indeed, classical authorities themselves recognized that certain avenues may cease to function due to changing circumstances. The category of riqāb (freeing slaves), for example, remains valid but is practically inapplicable today due to the absence of legally recognized slavery. The mere presence of a category in revelation does not obligate its activation when its operative conditions are absent or doubtful. Consequently, scholars are not required to revive a category whose contemporary applicability remains uncertain.

In this light, the appeal within the fatwā to exercise “flexibility” requires closer scrutiny. Flexibility in the law is invoked to remove hardship or address practical impediments preventing compliance with the law’s objectives. Yet it remains unclear what specific hardship necessitates expanding zakāt’s application in this case. What legal or communal hardship prevents Muslims from fulfilling the primary, uncontested zakāt categories of fuqarāʾ (the poor) and masākīn(the destitute) today such that flexibility must be invoked?

Moreover, if flexibility is being sought merely because political advocacy is considered strategically beneficial, this does not by itself constitute a legal necessity warranting reinterpretation of a tawqīfī act of worship. Political advocacy, lobbying, and policy engagement remain fully permissible avenues for community investment through voluntary charity and general communal funding. No legal barrier prevents Muslims from financially supporting such initiatives through means other than zakāt. Consequently, the appeal to flexibility appears less about removing hardship and more about expanding funding sources for political endeavors. In matters of ʿibādāt, however, expansion without necessity risks undermining the disciplined limits established by revelation.

Stepping back, a broader point must be considered: zakāt is given from just 2.5% of Muslim wealth. Can the diverse and pressing needs of the Ummah (Muslim community) realistically be met through zakāt alone? The answer is evidently no. Given this limitation, prudence suggests that zakāt—being an act of worship with strictly defined legal parameters—should be directed primarily toward categories whose applicability remains unequivocal, particularly the fuqarāʾ and masākīn. Meanwhile, the remaining 97.5% is eligible for use towards any legitimate purpose without the need for such claims. If political activists want to move the Ummah towards philanthropy and motivate Muslims to financially help the Muslims of Gaza and other places, they should focus their efforts on encouraging Muslims to utilize far more than a portion of the limited 2.5% zakāt. Muslims helped the Ummah not just through their zakāt but by philanthropy, establishing endowments (awqāf), and creative modes of ongoing charity (sadaqah jāriyah), all of which can be used for political advocacy, lobbying efforts, or other strategic initiatives.

In conclusion, the document effectively moves beyond interpreting an existing category of zakāt and arrives at endorsing what amounts, in substance, to a new and independent avenue. This is not merely an inferred concern but follows explicitly from the document’s own concluding formulation that “giving one’s zakāt for influencing political causes is warranted.” The argument thus begins with discussion of al-muʾallafah qulūbuhum, yet ends by treating political influence itself as the operative category, as though the two were synonymous. Directing zakāt toward modern political campaigns would embed a tawqīfī obligation into an inherently speculative process and erode the disciplined boundaries established by waḥy (revelation). We now stand at the brink of a new ijtihād that puts zakāt funds into the hands of untrustworthy, self-interested, and politically expedient actors. These are politicians whose commitments frequently shift with political winds and whose benefit to the Muslim community may amount to little more than a remote possibility of marginal impact.

Our position at Darul Qasim College is that giving zakāt to political campaigns is unequivocally not allowed and will not fulfill the mandate of zakāt.

_________________________

Signatories are all faculty at Darul Qasim College,

Shaykh MA Kholwadia, College President

Mufti Hisham Dawood, Senior Muftī at Dār al-Iftā

Mufti Ehzaz Ajmeri, Senior Muftī at Dār al-Iftā

Mufti Shaheer Pathan, Muftī at Dār al-Iftā

Muftiya Bushra bint Obaid Urrahman Alvi, the first female Muftiya at Dār al-Iftā

Dr. Muhammed Stodolsky, Head of Theology Department

Dr. Choukri Heddouchi, Head of Arabic Department

Mawlana Bilal Ansari, Head of Hadith Department

Mawlana Abdurrehman Haji, Head of Hadith Department

Mawlana Muhiuddin Khan, Faculty in Hadith Department