[Derived from the conversation and writing of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi]
Our jurists have imposed the condition of tamleek-e-zaati (personal ownership) on the disbursement of zakat. This means that zakat funds can only be given into the personal ownership of an individual; they cannot be spent directly on public welfare projects. That is, this money cannot be used to establish hospitals, madarasas, or similar collective institutions, nor can it be spent on the funeral arrangements of a deceased person or the repayment of their debts. The reason for this is that in matters of collective welfare, it is not possible for zakat to be handed over into the possession of an individual, and in the case of burial arrangements, the deceased cannot, due to death, be made the owner of the amount spent on them.
Respected teacher, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi does not consider this stance to be correct. In his view:
The condition of personal ownership which our jurists have imposed on the expenditures of zakat finds no basis in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Therefore, zakat can be spent on welfare projects in the same way as it can be given directly into the hands of an individual. (Meezan 354)
To establish ownership as a condition for zakat according to the jurists, generally, the following arguments are presented:
One point is that in Surah Al-Tawbah, verse 60, the word lilfuqara in Innama al-Sadaqatu lilfuqara contains the letter ‘ل‘ (lam), which is used for ownership, meaning to make someone the owner.
Secondly, the words aatu az-zakaata in the Holy Qur’an, the word eeta conveys the concept of transfer of ownership.
Thirdly, Allah Almighty has named zakat as sadaqah, and the concept of tasaddaq inherently implies ownership.
Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi, in his treatise Masala-e-Tamleek, criticized these arguments and deemed the concept of personal ownership contrary to the intent of the Qur’an and Sunnah. The summary of his position is as follows:
Firstly, there is no textual evidence in the Qur’an and Sunnah that possession is a requisite pillar of zakat.
Secondly, regarding the usage of ‘Lam’ in lilfuqara with the connotation of ownership (tamleek), it is important to clarify that in the Arabic language, ‘Lam’ is not used solely to convey the concept of ownership. It is employed in many other meanings as well. The renowned Arab scholar Ibn Hisham has written in his book Mughni al-Labib that this ‘Lam’ is used in 22 different meanings. Some of its usages are:
– Entitlement is used in the sense of being deserving, as it is used in the word Lillah in the phrase Alhamdulillah. The meaning of this phrase would be: “Only Allah is deserving of all praise.”
al-ardi in the word Lahu. The meaning of this sentence would be: “To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth.”
dinaran, the word li Zaid is used. The meaning of this sentence would be: “I have gifted a dinar to Zaid.”
verse Fa-altaqatahu ālu Firʿawna li-yakuna lahum aduwwan wa hazanan. The meaning of this sentence would be: “And the people of Pharaoh picked him (Moses) up from the river so that the outcome would be that he becomes for them an enemy and a cause of grief.”
Ibn Hisham’s approach is to attempt to provide examples from the Qur’an and Hadith for clarifying the meaning. If no example is available there, then he cites a sentence from the common language. Here, he has presented a common sentence from the Arabic language as an example of the possessive ‘Lam’. If the letter ‘Lam’ in the sentence Innama al-Sadaqatu lilfuqara had been as evidently possessive in meaning, he would have surely presented this very sentence from the Qur’an as an example.
Thirdly, regarding the ‘Lam’ in lilfuqara, our scholars have different opinions. The Hanafi school takes it to mean ‘consequence’. The Maliki school interprets it as ‘term’. Imam Shafi’i understands it in the sense of ‘ownership’.
Fourthly, the context of this verse refuses the interpretation of ownership.
The verse and its context are as follows:
فَاِنۡ اُعۡطُوۡا مِنۡهَا رَضُوۡا وَاِنۡ لَّمۡ وَمِنۡهُمۡ مَّنۡ يَّلۡمِزُكَ فِى الصَّدَقٰتِ يُعۡطَوۡا مِنۡهَاۤ اِذَا هُمۡ يَسۡخَطُوۡنَ. وَلَوۡ اَنَّهُمۡ رَضُوۡا مَاۤ اٰتٰٮهُمُ اللّٰهُ وَرَسُوۡلُهٗ وَقَالُوۡا حَسۡبُنَا اللّٰهُ سَيُؤۡتِيۡنَا اللّٰهُ مِنۡ فَضۡلِهٖ وَ رَسُوۡلُهٗ اِنَّاۤ اِلَى اللّٰهِ رٰغِبُوۡنَ اِنَّمَا الصَّدَقٰتُ لِلۡفُقَرَآءِ وَالۡمَسٰكِيۡنِ وَالۡعٰمِلِيۡنَ عَلَيۡهَا وَالۡمُؤَلَّـفَةِ قُلُوۡبُهُمۡ وَفِى الرِّقَابِ وَالۡغٰرِمِيۡنَ وَفِىۡ سَبِيۡلِ اللّٰهِ وَابۡنِ السَّبِيۡلِؕ فَرِيۡضَةً مِّنَ اللّٰهِ وَاللّٰهُ عَلِيۡمٌ حَكِيۡمٌ
Among them [O Prophet!] are those also who censure you [in the distribution] of charity. [These are the ones whom greed has impelled to join you.] Thus if they are given from that wealth, they remain happy and if they are not given from it, they show immediate anger. It would have been far better for them if they had remained content with what God and His Messenger had given them and said: “God is sufficient for us. God will give us a lot in future out of His grace and His Messenger also; We only want God.” [Tell them:] Charity in reality is only for the poor and the needy, and for those who are in charge of its set-up, and for those whose hearts are to be assured. Moreover, for the release of necks and to help those who have been inflicted with losses and for the way of God and for the welfare of the wayfarers. This is an obligation decreed by God and God is All-Knowing and Wise. (9:58-60)
Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi writes regarding the context of the verse:
Look, in the above verse, the mention was of those hypocrites whose good and bad assumptions about the Prophet (PBUH) were entirely based on their interests. If they received their desired share from the charity, they would praise the Prophet (PBUH) profusely, but if they did not get as much as they wished, they did not refrain from accusing him. They would unjustly charge him with bias and partiality and spread various insinuations among the people. Reflect on what could be the point to mention in this context? Is it that making a poor person the owner is necessary for the payment of zakat, or is it that the real rightful recipients of zakat and charities are such and such types of people? It is evident that in this context, the point to mention could only be the latter, not the former. Therefore, those among the commentators whose focus remains on context and background have also interpreted the verse in this manner. (Masala-e-Tamleek 19-20)
Fifthly, the internal composition of the verse obstructs the interpretation of ownership. This explanation is provided by Maulana Islahi in the following words:
In the verse, as is quite evident, eight categories are mentioned as beneficiaries of charity, with the first four mentioned under “ْلم“
(Lam) and the next four under “فی“ (fi). It is clear that an interpretation should be proposed which can be related both to “ْلم“ and “فی“. If “ْلم“ is taken to mean ownership, the first part of the verse will become completely detached from the last part because “فی“ inherently does not imply ownership. It implies benefit and service or utility, as mentioned in the Hadith: Ma kaana al-abdu fi aouni akhi-hi (As long as a Muslim is in the aid of his brother). Therefore, the coherence of both parts of the verse necessitates that here “ْلم” should be understood in the sense of entitlement or benefit so that the entire verse can be expounded under a unified interpretation. If this is not done and “ْلم” is interpreted to mean ownership, one would have to completely undermine the expansiveness and eloquence of the discourse to associate the concept of ownership with the last four categories.
The second and third arguments of the jurists, as mentioned earlier, are based on the idea that the true essence of the words eeta (giving) and tasadduq (charity) inherently involve transfer of ownership. In the context of these arguments, Iman Islahi states that it is true that at certain places the notion of ownership does get included in these terms, but the context holds decisive authority. It is not the case that the concept of ownership is invariably present within these words. If this were indeed true, then we would have to consider the sense of ownership in wa ātaynāhum al-kitaba (and We gave them the Book) and ‘aataynā Dā’uda zaburā (and We gave David the Psalms), which would not be correct. Similarly, the verse from Surah Al-Munafiqoon fa assaddaqa wa akun min as-sālihin implies that “I would generously spend my wealth in the way of Allah and for the welfare of the poor in various ways.” It does not mean “I used to transfer ownership to the poor.” Imam Islahi thus writes:
The words eeta (giving) and tasadduq (charity) are not so definitive in implying possession that they can be presented as textual evidence for the proof of ownership. The fundamental concept that emerges from them is giving or spending. This giving and spending can occur with ownership and also without it. The insistence on ownership, especially to the extent that without it zakat cannot be fulfilled, to the point where one cannot even purchase a shroud for a poor deceased person with zakat funds or pay off the debt of a poor deceased individual, is, in my opinion, completely unfounded.
This explanation makes it clear that ownership is not a necessary condition for zakat, meaning it is not required that a person be made the owner for it to be paid. Just as it can be given into someone’s possession, it can also be used for public welfare projects. Therefore, from this fund, hospitals and schools can be built, highways and rest houses can be constructed, and arrangements can be made for the burial of unclaimed bodies.