A Detailed Analysis and Comprehensive Breakdown of the FCNA/AMJA Zakat Statement

Abdul Sattar Ahmed

Introduction

In the Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, the Most Graciously Loving

We send salam and beseech the Merciful One to send salawat upon the beloved Messenger (s), the Sadiq, the Amin, the champion of the poor, the defender of the downtrodden, the light from God upon the Earth, the Mercy to All the Worlds.

InshAllah, we will explore the well-known FCNA/AMJA fatwa on Zakat together, stopping at important quotes and points to analyze the content. This article is not meant as a personal attack upon any scholar, imam, or religious figure, or meant to discredit anyone’s service and benefit to the Muslim community. We pray Allah blesses every person of knowledge, continues to make them examples for us, and unites us in His pleasure and obedience.

We will attempt to demonstrate that the FCNA/AMJA position does not follow the position of the Mufassirun, nor of the Four Madhabs of Sunni Islam, nor does it perform a valid Tanqih ul Manat, nor a valid Tahqiq ul Manat, thereby failing in any claim to Qiyas, or analogical legal reasoning. It also does not allow for Tamlik where money is delivered to a recipient, nor does it perform a defensible or practicable assertion of Wilayah.

Question: Given the reality of what is happening in Gaza, and that one of the most effective ways to help prevent genocide is by supporting politicians or campaigns that change public policy, is it permissible to give zakat for such purposes?

It is important for the Mufti when answering a question, to first deal with the inherent assumptions and claims inside the question. Otherwise, if he takes the assumptions in the question for granted and answers it outright, he risks validating the assumptions, implicitly affirming them, and building an entire answer that extracts rulings from the Sacred Law based upon a possible falsehood. This question begins with the assumption that:

1) Supporting politicians
2) Campaigns that change public policy

are each one of the “most effective ways to help prevent genocide”.

The Fatwa does not address this assumption. In Usul ul Ifta wa Adabuhu (The Principles and Etiquettes of Giving Fatwa), Mufti Taqi Usmani writes within the section “Tasawwur al-Surat al-Mas’ul Anhaa” while giving an example about divorce cases:

“It is not appropriate for the mufti to suffice with his (the questioner) statement alone. Rather, he should return the question to the questioner to clarify it, or add to it, if the questioner, for example, adds it in his wording. There is no harm in his adding it with his pen, if that detail is needed. Sometimes the questioner omits some of the important details when consulting the mufti face to face.”

We know from the well-known maxim, a foundational statement in both Logic and Usul: “الحكم على الشيء فرع عن تصوره” “Judgement upon a thing is contingent upon properly conceiving it”. This means we cannot even start to respond to a question unless we understand the matters it is founded upon, and the matter itself, correctly.

We have witnessed that foreign policy responsiveness in the United States is structurally insulated from mass pressure, and moneyed and organized interests dominate. The widely-cited political science study “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” (Martin Gilens, Benjamin I. Page) presents a body of quantitative work that stands in direct tension and contradiction with the idea that political campaigns are the most effective method to stop genocide. When discussing the failures in Tahqiq ul Manat, I will list more resources on this, inshAllah.

On Gaza specifically, the observable policy outputs (aid, arms, UN votes) show continuity despite efforts so far in “supporting politicians or campaigns that change public policy”. The U.S. has repeatedly used its Security Council veto power on Gaza ceasefire texts and arms continue to be transferred. Where there is a demonstrable “genocide prevention” obligation in international law, it is being pursued through level and state-to-state mechanisms, not campaign finance. Even if political engagement can matter at the margins, the leap from “sometimes influences policy” to “most effective for preventing genocide” is completely unsupported.

The FCNA/AMJA statement begins not by analyzing and engaging the question for its legitimacy, but by answering it out of the gate.

A Fatwa Not Based on the Juridical Schools of Sacred Law

Before I begin addressing the content of the legal opinion, it is important to highlight that this opinion does not claim to represent any of the legal schools. Rather, in effect, it is acting outside the legal schools, placing its writers in the position of a Mujtahid Mutlaq.

The research involved in the FCNA/AMJA opinion, ends with a dismissive statement about those who have strict adherence to madhabs, with the idea that the critical thinking and research present in the FCNA opinion is broader and more expansive than what is found in the schools, or somehow better thought out. I will attempt to demonstrate by reference to the authoritative texts of each of the four schools that not only was the thinking process of the madhabs incredibly detailed, diverse, and fully formed as juristic methods to think about this matter - but that the FCNA/AMJA opinion quotes their references and books only to dismiss the ultimate conclusions across all four schools.

A major issue with the opinion is that it seeks to place itself above the four schools, and do tarjih (choosing a dominant opinion) upon all the four. If it does not find the opinion it seeks, it tries step outside the four and create a new one. This would place FCNA/AMJA and its scholars in the roles of Mujtahid Mutlaq, capable of drawing directly from the source texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah, formulating jurisprudential principles (Usul), and formulating a new madhab.

Zakat is of the most important obligations and acts of worship in Islam, and is central to one’s identity as a Muslim. The eight categories of zakat are agreed upon and confirmed by the explicit testimony of the Quran, “Alms-tax is only for (1) the poor, (2) the needy, (3) for those employed to administer it, (4) for those whose hearts are attracted ˹to the faith˺ (mu’allafah qulūbuhum), (5) for freeing slaves, (6) for those in debt, (7) for Allah’s cause, and (8) for needy travelers” [Sūrah al-Tawbah, Āyah 60].

The fourth category, mu’allafah al-qulūb, which may be translated as ‘those whose hearts need to be softened’, is seminal in understanding whether it would be permissible to give zakat to the types of causes asked by the questioner.

The above section of the Fatwa is non-controversial, barring translation choices. It is important to note that a more appropriate translation is hearts that are to be inclined, reconciled, and brought towards embrace of Islam. “Softening” is a generalization that takes away the well-understood meaning and opens the door to a broader meaning that is not reflected by the commentaries on the verse or the Fiqh derived from the verse. I will proceed with the rest, inshAllah.

It is well known that the Prophet ﷺ gave non-Muslim chieftains large amounts from the spoils of war, most prominently after the Battle of Ḥunayn. It is recognized by the commentators that the primary purpose for this was to prevent these chieftains, during a crucial and sensitive time after the Conquest of Makkah, from coalescing amongst themselves and uniting to attack the Muslims. Notably, the majority of those who were given were not Muslims at this stage.

I will address this example from the perspective of Tafsir first, then from the perspective of Fiqh.

Tafsir Based Analysis of the Post-Hunayn Disbursements

We must remember that in the process of Fiqh and Fatwa, Tafsir works act as descriptors on legal matters for what the Fuqaha have already ruled. Tafsir works describe the verses regarding the Law and reference the Fuqaha and how they ruled. As any student of knowledge knows, to determine what the legal jurists ruled on a matter, one must consult the reliable books of each school.

The Prophet (saw) as commander of the Believers and ruler of the body politic of the Muslims, chose to distribute spoils of war as he wished. Ghanimah and Fay’ are under the discretionary spending authority of the ruler and have different rules than Zakat. Zakat is an act of worship with restricted categories for disbursement. So the statement that “the Prophet (s) did X with non-zakat public funds” has no bearing whatsoever on whether Zakat can be spent the same way, unless one can demonstrate that the Zakat rules match the rules for the public treasury or spoils of war. The Fatwa does not demonstrate this. It merely cites “some of them were cited by scholars”. A citation by by unnamed scholars does not suffice in Ifta as a proof for validity.

Imam al-Baghawi holds that the money that the Messenger (s) gave to the non-Muslim chieftains after the battle of Hunayn was in fact from the khums al-khums - the fifth of a fifth of the spoils that was his (saw) own discretionary portion.

al-Baghawi writes in his Ma’alim at-Tanzil:

وَأَمَّا الْكُفَّارُ مِنَ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ: فَهُوَ مَنْ يُخْشَى شَرُّهُ مِنْهُمْ، أَوْ يُرْجَى إِسْلَامُهُ، فَيُرِيدُ الْإِمَامُ أَنَّ يُعْطِيَ هَذَا حَذَرًا مِنْ شَرِّهِ، أَوْ يُعْطِيَ ذَلِكَ تَرْغِيبًا لَهُ في الإسلام ١٦٠/أفَقَدْ كَانَ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ يُعْطِيهِمْ مِنْ خُمْسِ الْخُمْسِ، كَمَا أَعْطَى صَفْوَانَ بْنَ أُمَيَّةَ لِمَا يَرَى مِنْ مَيْلِهِ إِلَى الْإِسْلَامِ، أَمَّا الْيَوْمُ فَقَدْ أَعَزَّ اللَّهُ الْإِسْلَامَ فَلَهُ الْحَمْدُ، وَأَغْنَاهُ أَنْ يُتَأَلَّفَ عَلَيْهِ رِجَالٌ، فَلَا يُعْطَى مُشْرِكٌ تَأَلُّفًا بِحَالٍ، وَقَدْ قَالَ بِهَذَا كَثِيرٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ أَنَّ الْمُؤَلَّفَةَ مُنْقَطِعَةٌ وَسَهْمَهُمْ سَاقِطٌ. رُوِيَ ذَلِكَ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ الشَّعْبِيِّ، وَبِهِ قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَالثَّوْرِيُّ، وَأَصْحَابُ الرَّأْيِ، وَإِسْحَاقُ بْنُ رَاهَوَيْهِ.
وَقَالَ قَوْمٌ: سَهْمُهُمْ ثَابِتٌ، يُرْوَى ذَلِكَ عَنْ الْحَسَنِ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ الزُّهْرِيِّ، وَأَبِي جَعْفَرٍ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، وَأَبِي ثَوْرٍ، وَقَالَ أَحْمَدُ: يُعْطَونَ إِنِ احْتَاجَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ إِلَى ذَلِكَ.

“As for the disbelievers among those whose hearts are to be reconciled, they are those whose harm is feared, or whose Islam is hoped for. So the Imam way wish to give to one out of caution from his harm, or give to another as encouragement towards Islam.

The Prophet (s) used to give them from one-fifth of the one-fifth, as he gave Safwan ibn Umayyah because of what he saw of his inclining towards Islam (becoming Muslim). As for today, Allah has strengthened Islam, and to Him is all praise, and made it independent of needing to win over men, so no polytheist is to be given any reconciliation in any case. Many of the people of knowledge have held this view, that the category of whose whose hearts are to be reconciled has ceased and their share has fallen away. This is narrated from ‘Ikrimah, and is the view of al-Sha’bi, and Malik, and ath-Thawri, and the people of legal reasoning,, and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh held this view.

And some said: their (the disbelievers’) share remains established. This is narrated from al-Hasan, and it is the view of al-Zuhri, Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, and Abu Thawr. And Ahmed said: they (the disbelievers) are given if the Muslims have need of that.

Note that in Imam al Bagahawi’s view the ratio legis, or legal cause which specifies the disbelievers who fall into this category and be given money is under two situations:

1. His harm is directly feared, and so payment is given to buy off his harm from immediate impact on Muslim life.

2. His Islam is eagerly anticipated

Neither of these situations apply to supporting a campaign for a candidate for election, even if he seems well-intentioned towards foreign policy concerns of the Muslim community.

The placement of the discussion in the verses regarding Zakat is precisely to refute the idea that the money was taken from Zakat, and rather to demonstrate that it was from the discretionary money belonging to the Prophet (s). Al-Alusi and Ibn Kathir specify that this group included those whose conversion to Islam was expected or who already showed inclination to convert.

Al-Baydawi notes that they were “nobles who were reconciled so that they might convert”. It is clear this does not refer to any non-Muslim who is potentially going to be in a position of influence, where he potentially may or may not meeting a campaign promise, to potentially influence an issue towards the benefit of the Muslims. There is also no evidence that this was taken from Zakat.

Imam an-Nasafi notes that “the share of those whose hearts are reconciled fell away by the consensus of the Companions at the beginning of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (r), because Allah strengthen Islam and made it independent of them”.

Ibn Kathir writes before discussing the difference of opinion on whether or not category remains effective today: “Among them are those who are given so they may accept Islam, as the Prophet (s) gave Safwan ibn Umayyah from the spoils of Hunayn”. Again we see Ibn Kathir clearly demonstrating that non-Muslims were given from spoils, not Zakat.

Imam al Qurtubi in his Tafsir of 9:60 highlights all of the opinions he was aware of regarding who can receive wealth under this category. None of them include non-Muslims who do not hold power over their people to bring them to Islam.

It is critical to understand that a full survey of the Tafsir literature presents a clear picture:

1. There is no clear claim that money from Zakat was given to non-Muslims.

2. There is evidence that money from general charity, and spoils of war were given to non-Muslims in order to affect their hearts towards Islam.

Even before we arrive at the works of the Fuqaha (addressing issues like Tamlik or possession of Zakat being handed over to a person), giving Zakat to a non-Muslim politician fails because:

1. As a non-Muslim, there is no evidence to give him/her from Zakah.

2. That person is not even from the categories considered in the tafsir literature:

   1. About to convert

   2. Converted but needs financial incentive to stay

   3. Converted but needs financial incentive to support the Muslim community

   4. Disbelieving but about to believe and bring their entire tribe to Islam

If the question is asked, “what about Muslim politicians?”, they are not people whose hearts need to be reconciled and brought deeper into Islam as they are already believing Muslims. Whose heart is being reconciled?

Mu’allafati Qulubuhum According to the Fuqaha

Hanafi School

It is the well known position of the Hanafi school that this category is abrogated due to the abrogation of its effective cause.

One of the positions taken when refuting the Hanafi school, is that because the category of al-Mu’allafati Qulubuhum is a Qur’anic category, its abrogation or falling away in applicability cannot be done by a Khalifah, even if that is Abu Bakr (r) or ‘Umar (r). Ibn ‘Abidin explains in his Hashiya that this is not the case in Hanafi reasoning. Since there was a consensus among the Companions that this category was no longer operative, Ibn ‘Abidin holds that we accept there must have been valid proof for this, even if we do not know what the proof was. He presents the idea that the ruling was explicitly abrogated during the lifetime of the Prophet (s). The Hadith of Mu’adh (ra) in which the Prophet (s) instructed that Zakah is taken from the rich and returned to the poor, is understood to limit Zakah distribution to poor Muslims.

We should appreciate the brilliance of the Hanafi scholars in this regard - their evidence is not a simple lack of cause, but a necessary endorsement of the Companions of Rasulullah (s), that they would not unite upon error.

Imam as-Sarakhsi sheds some light from his juristic perspective in al-Mabsut on why mu'allafati qulubuhum was included as a category in the first place.¹ He does so by highlighting the brilliance of Umar's (r) rationale to refuse its continuance, and how the Hanafi school views his refusal. The Prophet (s) used to give from a share in order to reconcile people to Islam. Imam as-Sarakhsi indicates that both opinions exist: that the recipients were already Muslim or that they had promised to accept Islam.

When it is asked how non-Muslims would have received from this category, Imam as-Sarakhsi explains that the obligation for martial service for Islam was obligatory upon both the rich and the poor. Since the poor are expending from their lives, wealth, and goods in order to meet the demands of martial service, a share of what *would* have gone to them (the poor) was redirected to stave off fighting altogether by repelling the harm of disbelievers who represented an imminent threat. It was a form of "giving" to the poor by taking a part of their share but relieving them of martial duty, thereby equalizing in some sense, the benefit to them directly.

This share fell with the return of the Messenger of Allah to his Lord, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. During the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (r), they sought a licensed document to claim their share, and Abu Bakr wrote one for them. When they went to 'Umar (r) to get his confirmation, he tore the document and told them that this was something the Messenger (s) used to give to reconcile their hearts, but now that the religion is strong, it has fallen. He told them that if they remain upon Islam, it is good but if they rebel, then they will be met with force. When they asked Abu Bakr who the Caliph is and complained about 'Umar (r), he humbly replied: "He is, if he wishes."

This being said, it is well-known that the Hanafi school considers this category abrogated. What about the other schools? Is the issue with the FCNA/AMJA statement simply that it does not follow the Hanafi opinion? No, let us examine the other schools.

I will not to cherry pick the opinions that align with abrogation but to try and represent the most authoritative opinions of each school, even if abrogation is not their position, so we can explore what their positions actually are.

Because the position of the school is well-known and not being directly relied upon to justify the FCNA/AMJA position except with a misquoting of al-Jassas which we will address later, we will abstain from quoting from the madhab in detail.

Maliki School

We can begin with Mukhtasar Khalil by the pillar of the school Khalil ibn Ishaq al-Jundi, who writes concerning the Mu’allafati Qulubuhum:
منها ومؤلف كافر ليسلم وحكمه باق

“and from them (who are given) is one whose heart is to be reconciled is the disbeliever, that he may become a Muslim, and its ruling remains operative”. We see the first indication here that will follow us through the rest of the works of the Madhab that the purpose is conversion to Islam.

To ensure we have not simply quoted the text of Mukhtasar Khalil without examining the relied upon explanations, we examine Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi on al-Sharh al-Kabir, which is the super commentary on Imam al-Dardir’s explanation of the Mukhtasar Khalil. I will explain the passage in English while listing the full quote in the footnotes.² We learn that the original passage indicating that the mu’allaf is a disbeliever being given so that he would become a Muslim, is accompanied by an alternative view in the school that it includes a Muslim whose faith is weak, so he is given wealth to strengthen him. The commentary explains that three positions appear in the Maliki school:
1) Operative but not Abrogated (Abdul Wahab, Ibn Bashir, authenticated by Ibn al Hajib).

2) The share has ceased due to Islam’s strength, described as the Mashur of the Madhab by al-Qabbab in Sharh Qawa’id ‘Iyad

3) Conditional revival if needed, preferred by al-Lakhmi and Ibn ‘Atiyyah.

The critical part here, whether the disbeliever is given to assist the Muslims or to save him from the fire or to assist the Muslims, the phrasing in the Hashiya is:
”بِأَنَّ الْمَقْصُودَ مِنْ دَفْعِهَا إلَيْهِ تَرْغِيبُهُ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ لِأَجْلِ إنْقَاذِ مُهْجَتِهِ مِنْ النَّارِ وَالثَّانِي مَبْنِيٌّ عَلَى الْقَوْلِ بِأَنَّ الْمَقْصُودَ مِنْ دَفْعِهَا لَهُ تَرْغِيبُهُ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ لِأَجْلِ إعَانَتِهِ لَنَا”

“The purpose of giving it to him is to encourage him towards Islam in order to save his soul from the Fire; and the second is based on the view that the purpose of giving it to him is to encourage him toward Islam in order for him to assist us.”

What is important to note is that the disbeliever’s share here, which is abrogated according to some of the Malikis as explained regardless of the final intent, is predicated on the goal of his conversion.

Let us examine Kitab Hashiyat as-Sawi ala Sharh as-Saghir, where Imam Ahmed as-Sawi writes:

“His statement ‘It is not given to a disbeliever’, even if he if he is from those whose hearts are to be reconciled (mu’allafati qulubuhum), for it is not like Zakah”

Sharh as-Saghir itself indicates that in any of the opinions in which giving to the non-Muslim is allowed, it is specifically to “speed up his conversion to Islam”. This says nothing about giving to a Muslim so they can run for a position of power, nor to a non-Muslim so they can seek to potentially be in a position of influence where they may perchance bring benefit to the community.

We find in the Mudawwanat al-Fiqh al-Mālikī wa Adillatihi by al-Sadiq al-Ghiryani, the position that a disbeliever could be given from Zakah:

“This share (al mu’allafati qulubuhum) includes the disbeliever whose Islam is hoped for, for he is given Zakah in order to incline him towards Islam.”

Even in this permissive position within the Maliki tradition, where there is debate among the fuqaha on whether the non-Muslim can be given from Zakah, the ratio legis is conversion.

In al-Tawdih fi Sharh al-Mukhtasar al-Far’ ibn Hajib, we find Khalil ibn Ishaq al Jundi explain:

“The mu’alaffah qulubuhum - the disbelievers - are given to encourage them toward Islam. It was said: “They are Muslims, so that their Islam can be firmly established. It was said: they are Muslims who have disbelieving followers so that those followers may be reconciled. And the correct view is: the continuance of their ruling if they are needed.

Meaning: It was different regarding the mu’allafah qulubuhum upon three statements. It was said they are disbelievers who are reconciled so that they may enter Islam. It was said they are Muslims newly entered into Islam, so they are given so that their hearts become firm because souls are naturally inclined to love the one who does good to them. It was said: they are Muslims who have disbelieving followers, so their followers are given to reconcile their hearts so that they submit to Islam through kind action.”

Khalil ibn Ishaq al Jundi goes on to discuss whether or not the category of giving to them remains, but we don’t even need to argue this. None of these categories include a general benefit, or a benefit to a non-Muslim who is not converting. The madhab is specific within the difference of opinion on who is to be given. None of these uses in the Maliki madhab include a Muslim seeking power or a non-Muslim seeking power.

The authors of the FCNA/AMJA opinion quoted Ibn ‘Arafa, but Ibn ‘Arafa’s al-Mukhtasar al-Fiqhi is a 16 volume encyclopedia of Maliki fiqh used for sourcing opinions, tracing the transmission of opinions among ‘ulama of the madhab across the generations, and establishing the sources of said opinions. It is not meant to be the source from which a ruling is drawn representing the mu’tamad position of the Madhab. It is curious that that Fiqh council is using a sourcing encyclopedia in order to provide “the Maliki” opinion when the correct procedure is to draw upon the the relied upon works of the school, their commentaries and glosses. This seems to be a methodological research error. A simple view at the entire quote shows us that what Ibn ‘Arafa is doing is listing opinion sources, not providing the relied upon position of the Madhab. Ibn ‘Arafa writes in his Mukhtasar al-Fiqhi:

“And the muallafah qulubuhum, regarding whether they are those who possess the ability to cause harm, who embraced Islam but whose Islam has not become firm, or disbelievers, or Muslims who have followers who are given so that their Islam may become firm, or so that they may accept Islam, or so that their followers may accept Islam, three positions by al Baji from the madhhab, along with Ibn Zarqun from Ibn Muzayn from Ibn al Qasim and Ibn Habib, and al Lakhmi transmitted it.

And regarding their cessation due to the spread of Islam such that their share does not return, and its return if they are needed, the statement of Asbagh along with al Baji from the madhhab, and the narration of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Zarqun from al Qadi.”

Simply by reading the full passage one can tell that this is a sourcing text, not a “relied-upon position” text. A person not trained in the names of the Maliki Fuqaha mentioned and how to rely on them to understand the sources, would not even know what to do with this. Nevertheless, the FCNA/AMJA opinion pulled the first sentence of this as if it represents the entire Maliki school.

Let us go directly to Abu Hasan al Lakhmi, who is one of the major jurists whose positions are held as an authority by Khalil ibn Ishaq. I will quote the entire passage as it represents an authority in the school, is within the first 500 years of Islam and his Tabsira serves as a bridge between early works like the Mudwanna and later central works like the Mukhtasar Khalil. He writes:

“There is disagreement regarding al-Mu’allafati Qulubuhum according to three views: It is said, he is the disbeliever who is reconciled by means of giving so that he may enter into Islam…” It is said: he is the Muslim who is new committed to Islam. It is said he is a man from among the leaders of the polytheists who embraces Islam and he is given in order that others from his people who have not yet entered Islam may be inclined by that.”

Imam al-Lakhmi writes perhaps the most critical sentence in his analysis, summarizing the Maliki position from his vantage point, which is supported by the many Maliki jurists I’ve quoted:

”All of this is close in meaning to one another. There is no difference between giving to a disbeliever so that Allah may save him thereby from the Fire, or to a Muslim out of fear that he may return to disbelief, or so that someone else may enter Islam. All of that ultimately returns to faith, either entering into it or remaining firm upon it.”

Even if we ignore the Maliki opinion that a disbeliever is not to be given to, and actively embrace the Maliki position that not only the is category still in effect, but that disbelievers may be given to, the ratio legis is centered upon one thing: embrace of Islam.

This has absolutely no relevance to the FCNA/AMJA position whatsoever in which giving to a PAC, campaign, or candidate, in order to get them elected, could ever fall under al-Mu’allafat Qulubuhum. If they are committed Muslims, the category does not apply. If they are non-Muslims, their conversion is the goal.

So far we’ve demonstrated that the FCNA/AMJA position cannot be supported by the Mufassirun, the Hanafi madhab, or the Maliki madhab.

Shafi’i School

Now we move to the Shafi’i school and what it has to say on this category in 9:60 of the Qur’an.

The text itself from the al-Khatib al-Shirbini’s Mughni al-Muhtaj is extensive and can be difficult to parse when read in translation, and one can find the original text in the footnotes below so that they can verify that I am summarizing it correctly³.

The author writes that the category refers to a person who has embraced Islam with weak faith and intention, and is given money so his faith can become strong, and that he might become accustomed to Muslims. His statement regarding the weakness of his intention is accepted without him swearing it.

It can also refer to a person who has status among his people and is already Muslim, but giving to him can cause others like him to embrace Islam. Such a person’s status is not believed without proof.

The third category are those given from the fifth-of-a-fifth, which was the discretionary amount the Prophet (s) gave from according to scholars I’ve quoted above such as Imam al-Baghawi.

Here we see the critical point: Disbelievers, even if their Islam is hoped for or their harm is feared aren’t given from Zakat “by consensus” but they can be given from the other sources of wealth.

We can turn to the works of the Shafi’i school that represent its mu’tamad opinions. Let us look at the Nihaayat al Muhtaj of Imam ar-Ramli with Hashiyat ar Rashidi. Again, I provide the original arabic in the footnotes and will summarize the lengthy discussion⁴. Here we find that weak Muslim converts, influential Muslims whose giving promotes conversion to Islam, and security-related arrangements with Muslims at the borders, are to be given from Zakah according to the primary view. Even this is disagreed upon according to the second position, and is restricted to public funds according to a third position. As for non-Muslims, they are neither given from Zakah and according to what is considered the most reliable, are not given from any other funds at all.

Let us finally explore Al-Ghurar al-Bahiyya by Shaykh ul Islam Zakariya al-Ansari, along with two of its glosses. The original is in the footnotes⁵: The categories of Muslims who may be given are:

1. A Muslim of weak faith

2. A Muslim of influential social status with proven evidence of power to cause others to become Muslim

3. A Muslim who fights those who refuse to pay zakah

4. A Muslim who fights nearby enemies

This is entirely based on the need for these, and the amount is left to the judgement of the Imam.

Non-Muslims are explicitly not given from Zakah whether out of fear of their harm, or to encourage them toward Islam. According to the dominant opinion given here, they are not given from any funds either.

If this is the case with the Shafi’i position, giving to a PAC, campaign, or any person running for office, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, would not fall into any of the categories given.

Imam al-Mawardi was quoted by one of the authors in terms of the importance of funding community protection and defense through Zakat. Imam al-Mawardi explicitly says:

“فَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْأَصْنَافِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ مُسْلِمًا جَازَ أَنْ يُعْطَى مِنْ سَهْمِ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ مِنَ الزَّكَاةِ، وَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْهُمْ مُشْرِكًا عَدَلَ بِهِ عَنْ مَالِ الزَّكَاةِ إلَى سَهْمِ الْمَصَالِحِ مِنَ الْفَيْءِ وَالْغَنَائِمِ”

Whoever among these four categories is a Muslim, it is permissible that he be given from the share of the mu’allafah from the zakah. And whoever among them is a polytheist, he is redirected away from zakah funds to the share of public interests from the fay’ and the spoils of war.

Again, even in the quotes used by the writers of the FCNA/AMJA position to justify their ruling, the very authors testify against the idea of using Zakah to be given to non-Muslims in the Shafi’i school. This is not to mention that quoting Ahkam as-Sultaniyah of Imam al-Mawardi is not the correct way of utilizing the book to give fatwa. If one wished to quote Imam al-Mawardi for drawing rulings, it is appropriate to quote his Al-Hawi al-Kabir, in which one would be hard pressed to find the opinion that Zakah can be used for this purpose.

So far we’ve demonstrated that the FCNA/AMJA position cannot be supported by the Mufassirun, the Hanafi madhab, the Maliki madhab, or the Shafi’i madhab.

Hanbali School

Given that the authors quoted the Hanbali school later in their statement, I will address the statements there, inshAllah.

While some of these reports go beyond zakat, 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 zakat to non-Muslims in comparable cases. More pertinently, they firmly establish a broader principle: at times, the public interest may require allocating funds even to the wealthy, to non-Muslims, or to those of questionable personal character, when that secures a general benefit for the Muslim community.

These reports do not establish a principal about securing a “general benefit”. The interpretations of the Hadith, as well as the Tafsir and the Fuqaha make it clear that the benefits are specific, not general. This part of the passage skips over the implication of going “beyond Zakat” which is that it makes the performance and completion of Zakat incomplete when delivered in such a way.

Based on these precedents, scholars throughout our history have discussed the Qur’ānic category of mu’allafah al-qulūb and used these examples in light of the verse in Sūrah al-Tawbah. As with so many other issues, there are a wide range of opinions, both with regards to the scope and the current application of this term.2

It is important to note that this ruling does not follow any of those opinions in scope or application of the term. Observation that a particular ruling has been discussed is not an open license to re-interpret that verse without the guardrails that are part of Usul ul Fiqh and adab ul Ifta.

Some scholars also claimed that this category only applied to the Prophet ﷺ and was not applicable after his death. However, as al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 728 CE), Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 742 CE), and later scholars like Ibn Qudāmah (d. 1223 CE) and Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) point out, there is no evidence to suggest this ruling is abrogated, as the default for all verses are that they are to be applied in all times and not considered abrogated.3

This difference of opinion is well known between the Hanafi school and others. I have listed a number of these differences. What is important to note again, is that the current opinion presented by FCNA/AMJA does not draw upon any of these opinions and instead add a completely new category with completely new conditions that were not upheld by any of the named jurists.

Among the schools of law that deemed this category applicable, jurists included within it non-Muslim political figures for whom such funds were given solely to prevent potential harm from them to the Ummah.

In the Ḥanbalī school, Ibn Qudāmah writes in his ʿUmdah, “The mu’allafah qulūbuhum are the leaders who have authority in their communities, and it is hoped by giving them something that their evil will be diminished, or their faith strengthened, or that they be repelled from the Muslims…”4

Let us examine the Hanbali school to see what it is saying.

Ibn Abi Umar al-Maqdisi makes the statement in his Sharh al Kabir:

المؤلفة قلوبهم قسمان: كفار ومسلمون، وهم جميعا السادة المطاعون في عشائرهم كما ذكرنا

Those whose hearts are to be reconciled are two categories: unbelievers and Muslims. All of them are the obeyed chiefs among their clans, as we mentioned.

Per al-Muqniʿ, we see from Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih in his al-Mubdi’

وَأُجِيبُ بأَنَّهُ كَانَ مِنْ مَالِ الْفَيْءِ لَا الزَّكَاةِ.

“And it is answered that they gave from Fay’, not Zakah”

That distinction is important and it seems that it keeps getting summarily mentioned but skipped over.

Let us make sure not to skip over any aspect of the Hanbali position. In Hall al ‘Uqda fi Sharh al ‘Umda we find the categories who can be given funds:

1. A nonbeliever from whom imminent danger upon the Muslims is feared, so he is given from Zakah to prevent his harm or to encourage him towards Islam and acceptance of it.

2. A weak Muslim who is given to strengthen his faith

3. One who possesses influence and leadership, who is obeyed. Individuals of his tribe are expected to comply and pay Zakah or Muslims are strengthened through him against those who refuse to pay Zakah

Even in this case we find evidence for paying a non-believer who is imminently threatening the community, but not to potentially give to someone who has no power yet, hoping that our support of them will help them to get power.

In the quoting of Al-Muqni’ by authors of the position, there is no evidence that creates the jump to funding any kind of general support of any Islamic cause or furthering of Islam. The Fiqh identifies recipients with defined qualities and predictable relationships. It identifies Tamlik. It identifies why it is “hearts” that are being reconciled.

Which recipients’ heart is being reconciled in lobbying or in a political campaign donation?

The authors of the position in other places quote Tabari in which he is making a descriptive observation about the reasoning behind the verse. Tafsir at-Tabari is not a source for Fatwa. His descriptive observation is his summary of the general import of the verses, the specifics of which are found in the books of Fiqh. It seems methodologically problematic to take a descriptive Tafsir summary, and use it to establish a Fiqh ruling, when the Fiqh ruling was observed in order to create the descriptive Tafsir summary. His general observation which was a generalization of the specific, does not become cause to add categories to the specific.

Let us not suffice here but turn to the sources of the mu’tamad of the Hanbali school, such as Kashshaf al-Qina ‘an Matn al Iqna. We can admit that the category is alive according to the madhab and but one must look at the conditions even to give to a wrongdoer who might harm the Muslims:

“(And they are the leaders of their people), and likewise as it is stated in al-Muqni’ and others, they are the chiefs who are obeyed among their clans. Whoever is not like that (isn’t obeyed) is not given from zakah for reconciliation, even if his harm is feared by his joining a wrongdoer, because the name “one whose heart is reconciled” does not apply to him.”

I am quoting the text in entirety below so readers can check the context⁶, but it is within the discussion of defending the idea that the category is alive. Al-Bahuti also adds here:

“And (his statement that he is obeyed among his people is not accepted except with evidence), because it is not difficult to establish proof for that.”

Even in the relied upon position of the Hanbali school, which is the most open with regards to this category among the four, giving funds to a person is not allowed if he does not already hold power to be obeyed among the people. Campaign promises, promises of “with this money I shall get power”, which was entirely a possibility during the time of the tribal Arabia, does not count for the madhab.

Fatwa Sourcing and Usuli Issues

Ibn ʿArafah (d. 1401 CE) from the Mālikī school writes, “The mu’allafah qulūbuhum are people of power who can potentially cause harm [to the Muslims]; they are Muslims of weak faith, or non-Muslims, or Muslims with large followers.”5

This has been addressed extensively in the Maliki Fiqh section above.

Amongst the contemporary scholars, Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1905 CE) writes, “This category (of mu’allafah al-qulūb) includes those whose hearts it is desired to soften towards Islam, or to affirm their Islam, or to repel their evil from the Muslims, or to utilize their services in either defending or fighting for the Muslims [another enemy].”7

Rashid Rida is not considered a legal authority or source for fatwa according to any Islamic university, madrasa, madhab, or curriculum. It is strange that his quote is brought here as evidence and foundation for fatwa. In addition, it would be encouraged for a religious scholar who wishes to quote Rashid Rida’s religious opinions to investigate his belief on whether or not the miracles mentioned in the Qur’an, actually happened as signs of Allah (swt).

Sh. ʿAbdullāh b. Manīʿ from the Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia, and a judge in the Higher Court of Appeal in Makkah, writes:

If Muslim minorities are living in a non-Islamic country, ruled by a non-Muslim government, and it becomes evident that these minorities are in circumstances that call for winning that government’s goodwill so that it will attend to their condition and safeguard their rights and freedoms, then assisting that government from the zakat allotment for “those whose hearts are to be reconciled” (al-mu’allafah qulūbuhum)—in a way that secures for these Muslim minorities support, respect, standing, and empowerment—is warranted, and its permissibility is derived from realizing the public interest of these Muslim communities.

Even this ruling does not refer to the circumstances of the American Muslim community nor the context of the Fatwa. The “goodwill” of “the government” in an American election is not won through payments. In fact, to do so actively would be considered bribery and perhaps a criminal act. The mustafti asked about Gaza and genocide. The authors have brought Sh. Abdullah b. Mani’s position here to discuss the situation of Muslims in a non-Muslim country. Additionally, the fiqh positions I’ve highlighted from the legal schools stand on their own.

Failure of Tanqih ul Manat and Tahqiq al Manat

The deepest technical and structural problems with the fatwa do not come from the claim that the categories of al-mullafati qulubuhum are still operative. Although the Hanafi school disagrees completely, and the Shafi’i school outright forbids Zakah from being given to any non-Muslim, it can be argued that the Maliki and Hanbali schools have left that door open.

Even when we assume the door to that is open, we’ve demonstrated that the categories and conditions of the Maliki and Hanbali schools do not allow giving to the category that has been invented in the position - political candidates.

If Qiyaas (analogy) is used in order to create a connection between the categories mentioned in the Maliki and Hanbali schools, with political candidates, we can see that there are failures of essential jurisprudential steps in making a sound analogy. We explore this below.

Wealth is a means, not an end; the end is the existence of an integrated, compassionate, cohesive Islamic community that enjoys dignity, elevation, honor, and freedom in harmony with the requirements of the Sharīʿah, in accordance with the rulings of God and His Messenger.9

Given the reality that in Western democracies, there is no single leader (as used to be the case in the past), but rather an electoral body, the ratio legis, or ʿillah, of zakat being used for political influence for the benefit of the Ummah would then apply to members of the political body that wields the power of legislation.

This is a massive jump. The ratio legis does not apply in a Western democracy. There is a serious usuli problem here.

Usul ul Fiqh is defined through three essential pillars according to Imam al-Asnawi:

1. Recognizing what is permissible to use as general evidence

2. Understanding how to benefit from the evidences correctly

3. Determining who qualifies to do this work of extracting the benefit

This is reflected in Imam al-Baydawi in Minhaaj al-Wusul where he states that usul ul-Fiqh is “a general knowledge of the evidences of Fiqh, the procedure to derive them, and the standing of the person who performs the derivation”.

Element of Qiyaas

Imam ar-Razi defines fiqh in Al-Mahsul as “having knowledge of the actionable legal rulings extracted from specific evidences in a way that they are not known through reason”.

What is the Qat’i, or definitive evidence in our case? We know that it is verse 9:60 of the Qur’an. The Dhanni (non-definitive) evidence that produces a strong probability but is open to alternative interpretations includes narrations such as the Hadith of distribution of wealth and Hunayn. One of the most important principles of Usul is that “the Qat’i cannot be opposed by the Dhanni”, that is the definitive cannot be overruled by the probabilistic. The AMJA/FCNA opinion uses a probabilistic view from a probabilistic evidence to add to a definitive text - a verse of the Qur’an.

If a scholar attempts to make an analogy against a definitive text instead, they are obligated to follow the formula of Qiyas, or legal analogy. These rest on four elements:

1. Al-Asl or al-Maqis Alayhi - the Foundation Reality already existing as a case in the Qur’an or established Sunnah

2. Al-Far’ or al-Maqis - the Subsidiary case that is being examined which does not have a specific textual evidence

3. Al-’Illah, or al Jam’i - the effective cause, the legally operative characteristic that is potentially existent between the al-Asl and Al-Far’

4. Al-Hukm - where the ruling that was established in the ‘asl is validly extended to the new issue (al-Far’)

We see the clear causes for the original rulings in the Maliki school - that the goal of giving funds as stated by al-Lakhmi and others is conversion. We see the example of the same in the Hanbali school: guaranteed positions and proven power (not a mere promise). These operative causes have been established in the two madhabs as binding ‘illahs according to each school. If qiyas is done claiming these schools’ as the foundation case we show below that such a qiyas is invalid in the way it was attempted by FCNA/AMJA.

Tanqih al Manat is the process of stripping the non-operative descriptions (awsaf tardiyyah) that accompany a ruling and isolating what actually is the effective basis for the ruling (wasf mu’athir). That is, to understand clearly what the ‘illah is. The supposed ijtihad made assertions that “tribal chiefs” are just descriptions for influence and that political candidates who do not currently hold guaranteed power with immediate influence upon their people can be the objects of legal extension. A proper Tanqih of the Manat should lead to clarity, but an improper one leads to confusion that obscures the original meaning of Revelation. Hence the claim doesn’t meet the standards of Tanqih for two reasons:

1. The authors are stripping away the legal description that comes with being a chief, and that is obedience through which people accept Islam, harm is directly restrained, etc. One that is gone Ta’lif (to incline the hearts close) is no longer theIstilaahi ta’lif (the Ta’lif meant in the legal terminology) of the Fuqaha. It has been transformed into a general term that is an unbounded policy instrument. That isn’t tanqih, it is replacement of the manat.

2. Reframing as the fatwa does is swapping the object completely - the authors are flipping reconciling hearts with financing mechanisms and political machinery. Whose heart is being reconciled here? The nass was interpreted into specific categories. Those categories were described by Tabari and others in terms of benefit. The authors are then USING that description of benefit to expand the categories and overrule the nass. This is a failure of Tanqih and Tahqiq.

Even if a valid Tanqih had been done and the operative cause had been correctly extracted from the original rulings, another step would have been necessary. Although the FCNA/AMJA ruling fails in Tanqih, it tries to continue on to this step which is Tahqiq ul Manat.

What is Tahqiq al Manat? It is the disciplined verifying that the operative cause that was already established in the existing case, truly presents itself in the new case. Tahqiq ul Manat doesn’t create a new ruling, create a new ‘illah, and it most definitely does not refine or modify the ‘illah to mean something other than the original. In simple terms it asks: “Does this real-world situation truly contain the legally operative characteristic that triggers the ruling?”

Additionally Tahqiq al Manat is NOT “I think this might help”. As we said, it is the disciplined verifying that the basis actually exists in the case. That has not been done at all and too much evidence to the contrary exists. In fact there is an incredibly large body of evidence to the contrary. In fact, substantial political science literature raises doubts about the responsiveness of the American political institutions to lobbying or average citizen influence⁷.

Imam Suhaib Webb has a series walking through the above issues concerning the operational and structures problems of the Fatwa from an Usuli perspective here: Zakat Fatwa. I recommend readers view it for a more detailed explanation from this angle.

At minimum the claim of effectiveness is highly contested. Tahqiq requires establishing that the causal pathway actually exists in reality, not that it is politically aspirational.

Assuming that we take the most permissive positions from the Maliki and Hanbali schools, what would apply to these cases in a valid analogy? One could argue that it would be recent convert refugees, influential leaders of their people who are about to convert to Islam, and new Muslims who are struggling with faith. However, professional lobbyists, politicians, campaigns, PACs, political groups and consultants would completely fail the test that Islamic jurisprudence demands of the analogy. These relationships are contractual, transactional, and professional. They are not related to Iman, and most definitely are unrelated to the state of the heart.

And, in the absence of a Muslim ruler, or walī al-amr, a group of trusted scholars and reputable specialists will effectively take on the role of a walī al-amr, as al-Juwaynī stated.10

This is a serious error in applying the statement of Imam al-Juwayni. Evidence for context regarding al-Juwayni’s statement is in the footnotes⁸. I’ve provided the section right after what has been quoted by the authors to demonstrate that the context is about rulership and governance in Muslim societies. His purpose was to establish a fail-safe for Muslim societies. His argument about authority returning to ulama was to ensure the continuity of state functions such as hudud, defense, and justice through Qada. His intent is not authorizing NGOs in a secular, non-Muslim state to repurpose Zakah for public lobbying. Neither AMJA/FCNA holds academic Wilayah over American Muslims in order to be able to do this.

Muslims in the United States are a diverse group that do not look to FCNA/AMJA for all their rulings. The authors referred to their “discomfort” when it referred to those who adhere to madhabs, which comprise of entire communities. The use of this quote is concerning because it implies the authors consider AMJA and FCNA to consist of the utterly most qualified fuqaha on the continent. If it is referring on the other hand to the theoretical body of scholars that would govern over the giving of the Zakat to political causes, it would be impossible for the senior scholars of the continent, most of whom adhere to a madhab, to ever allow for this position to be taken as a valid practice of their legal school.

It is true that this fatwa is widening the scope that is found in the Ḥanbalī and Mālikī schools; those rules generally speak about politicians who already hold real influence and are obeyed in their communities (min ruʾūs al-ʿashāʾir al-muṭāʿīn), not those who hold partial influence (like members of a parliament, senate or congress), or those seeking such a position.

This is not only widening the scope found in the schools. It is adding a distinct category by including persons that the scope of the Hanbali and Maliki schools simply did not include. The evidence for this has been well established above.

Lack of Tamlik

A major issue that the FCNA/AMJA statement seems to avoid completely, is the condition of Tamlik. Tamlik means the transfer of ownership of the Zakat amount to an eligible representative, so that they can spend from that wealth as an owner. In simple terms, did the giver hand it over to the complete ownership of a receiving person?

In the Hanafi school, Tamlik is mandatory for the validity of Zakat. We cannot count something as Zakat unless the eligible recipient (or their authorized agent) actually takes possession in such a way that we know full ownership to the recipient has been transferred. Imam al-Marghinani mentions this in his famous Al-Hidayah:

ولا يبنى بها مسجد ولا يكفن بها ميت “ لانعدام التمليك وهو الركن

“‘And a mosque is not built with it, nor is a deceased person shrouded with it, due to the absence of Tamlik, which is the pillar”

In the Shafi’i school, Iqbad, or delivery of the wealth to the recipient is a condition of Zakah as well as stated by Imam an-Nawawi in his al-Majmu’, through reference to case law regarding a debt owed by an insolvent person that the lender wishes to count as Zakat:

لأن الزكاة في ذمته فلا يبرأ إلا بإقباضها

“Because Zakah remains in his liability, so he is not discharged from it unless by delivering it over (Iqbaadihaa)”

In the Hanbali school, Ibn Qudamah in al-Mughni articulates an important distinction: four categories of recipients who must be given wealth with total handover (Tamlik) as a condition: the poor, the needy, the zakat collector, and the mu’allafah:

وَالْفَرْقُ بَيْنَ هَذِهِ الْأَصْنَافِ وَاَلَّتِي قَبْلَهَا ، أَنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ أَخَذُوا لِمَعْنًى لَمْ يَحْصُلْ بِأَخْذِهِمْ لِلزَّكَاةِ ، وَالْأَوَّلُونَ حَصَلَ الْمَقْصُودُ بِأَخْذِهِمْ ، وَهُوَ غِنَى الْفُقَرَاءِ وَالْمَسَاكِينِ ، وَتَأْلِيفُ الْمُؤَلَّفِينَ ، وَأَدَاءُ أَجْرِ الْعَامِلِينَ

The Maliki school also holds that Tamlik is a condition for the first four categories along with the traveller, and this would include the Mu’allafati qulubuhum.

Since the FCNA/AMJA position allows the giving of Zakah for Mu’allafati qulubuhum, with the category of political parties, campaigns, PACs, or political activism being interpreted as those whose hearts are to be reconciled, the condition of Tamlik would fail according to all four madhabs, but most definitely according to the madhabs upon which FCNA/AMJA are attempting to do a “qiyas-based extension”.

That is - no single politician is personally receiving the money so that his/her heart can be reconciled towards Islam. On the contrary, political giving in the United States and in most electoral systems goes to an organization, non-profit political party, consulting firm or political business. At no point does Tamlik occur in this process, causing a complete failure of the condition that Zakat has been properly handed over and executed.

The Question of Ijtihad Outside the Madhabs

Understandably, some of the scholars who are committed to strict adherence to a madhhab may feel uneasy with this extension, but this is precisely where legitimate ijtihād is warranted, given the changing times and circumstances we live in.

This is a gross misrepresentation of what a madhab is. A madhab has the ability to operate with changing times and circumstances, adapt to the needs of the people, and draw upon its usul in order to solve problems that facing the public. This statement demonstrates that the very idea of a madhab, the internal debates that occur within each madhab, the dynamic problem-solving capabilities inherent within each madhab, and the depth of discussion inside each school is not being appreciated by the authors.

If we apply the rules with strict adherence to classical conditions (which, it should be noted, are largely ijtihādī in nature as well), this would weaken the practical functioning or aims of the Sharīʿah for this category, and essentially make this category null and void.

This portion of the statement essentially says that: “Because ijtihad occurs in the past by the mujtahids, our ijtihad can overrule it, expand to it, or add another category to what already exists in the sacred law.”

This stands in stark contrast to how Ijtihad, Ifta, and the concept of Islamic Law has been understood by the entirety of Islamic scholarship since its inception.

For brevity’s sake, I advise readers to acquaint themselves with what jurists from each madhab said about who is qualified to do ijtihad and at what level. Imam al-Marjani for example after critiquing Ibn Kamal Basha’s seven-tier classification of mujtahidin, seems to settle on more of a three-tier system in his Nadhuratul Haqq:

1) The Mujtahid Mutlaq who can do istinbat (original derivation) of rulings through the Qur’an, Sunnah, and legal reasoning.

2) The Mujtahid fil-madhab, or the mujtahid who is able to perform derivation of branch rulings for legal cases while following the framework and principles of a school.

3)And what he calls Tawa’if Mutafawita (Varying ranks of Scholars) who vary in their level of mastery but do not reach the level of original derivation.

Ibn Salah in his Adab al Mufti wal Mustafti writes about the five levels of Ifta starting from the Mujtahid and then describing four grades of non-independent muftis, who can perform what might be called ijtihad, but only within the madhab.

Ibn Hamdan from the Hanbali school writes in his Sifat ul Fatwa wal Mufti wal Mustafti that there are four levels of Mujtahid, with only one being the Mujtahid Mutlaq and the rest having to follow a madhab.

Ibn Rushd al-Jadd al-Maliki writes that there are three groups: Mere memorizers of Malik’s statements, those who know the usul and can distinguish between sound transmissions but cannot perform qiyas from usul to furu, and those who possess the full toolkit for general fatwa and ijtihad.

How it is possible for FCNA/AMJA to publish a legal opinion which adds to the Qur’anic text, a meaning for al-mu’allafati qulubuhum, which cannot be supported by any of the positions of the four madhabs, makes one question if the councils mentioned consider themselves capable of performing Ijtihad Mutlaq. This would stand in contradiction to the what the scholars hold is possible in Ijtihad today.

Effectively, this is why it appears as if this category has all but been abandoned in our times, yet the category remains as a binding verse. Therefore, we strongly believe a careful and principled degree of flexibility is justified, and that this flexibility can easily be drawn from the legal tradition itself.

Would the authors apply the same to verses about slavery? The verses concerning freeing slaves are “all but abandoned” but the verses remain binding. Does FCNA/AMJA advocate finding a means to re-establish slavery so that we can implement the verses about freeing slaves?

As this fatwā is being written, the world is seeing the impact that specific lobbies have had in unethically shaping domestic and foreign policy in aiding and abetting a genocide against our brothers and sisters in Gaza; it is imperative that people of conscience then also strive to influence policies to be more ethical and humane, and to save innocent life and to protect the most vulnerable of our Ummah.

Therefore, in light of both the classical position of al-mu’allafah qulūbuhum, and the modern reality of politics, and especially in the current climate of a genocide taking place, the members of this committee believe that giving one’s zakat for influencing political causes is warranted, with the following conditions:

Conclusion

The fatwa is not in light of the classical position but despite it. The occurrence of genocide warrants urgent, organized, collective, and sincere action to combat said genocide, but has nothing to do with a ta’abbudi act or worship where the categories to be given to are clearly defined by the fuqaha. Much has been said in statements by scholars and teachers about the corrupt nature of the American political system and the damage that would be done to this pillar of worship of Zakat money were to be poured into it, that there is no reason to repeat that here.

Given all of the above, there is no coherent legal synthesis that can be claimed. The claim of al-maslaha al-'aamah is restricted by the Fiqh, the Fiqh is not expanded by the description. The fuqaha are clear in whom the money should be given to, and that it is to be received by specific individuals who have specific qualities.

It may surprise some as to the level of response the FCNA/AMJA position caused, going as far as to question what authority either organization has to give any religious rulings. Although our exploration here does not seek to address the matter on an emotional or personal level - it’s important to note that:

• the wholesale misunderstanding of each madhab’s position

• the misquotes, half-quotes, and mis-sourcing to determine the mu’tamad (relied upon) positions of the madhabs while still appealing to their legal space

• referring to the position as an “expansion” of legal categories from a legal basis that does not exist

• a complete failure in the mechanisms of Islamic jurisprudence with regards to legal analogies

  raises serious questions about the matter.

The FCNA/AMJA position does not follow the position of the Mufassirun, nor of the four madhabs, nor does it perform a valid Tanqih, nor a valid Tahqiq, nor a satisfaction of Tamlik where money is delivered to a recipient, nor a defensible assertion of Wilayah.

Allahumma salli ala Sayyidina Muhammadin fil awwalin wal aakhirin

May Allah guide us all, forgive us, and unite our hearts upon the Truth.

1. ﻭﺃﻣﺎ اﻝﻣﺆﻟﻔﺔ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻬﻢ ﻓﻜﺎﻧﻮا ﻗﻮﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺅﺳﺎء اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﻛﺄﺑﻲ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺮﺏ ﻭﺻﻔﻮاﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻴﻴﻨﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺼﻦ ﻭاﻷﻗﺮﻉ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺎﺑﺲ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻬﻢ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ اﻟﻠﻪ - ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ - ﺑﻔﺮﺽ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺳﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺼﺪﻗﺔ ﻳﺆﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻓﻘﻴﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﻗﺪ ﺃﺳﻠﻤﻮا ﻭﻗﻴﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﻭﻋﺪﻭا ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻠﻤﻮا ﻓﺈﻥ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺠﻮﺯ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻳﺼﺮﻑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻛﻔﺎﺭ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ اﻟﺠﻬﺎﺩ ﻭاﺟﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻔﻘﺮاء ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ ﻭاﻷﻏﻨﻴﺎء ﻟﺪﻓﻊ ﺷﺮ اﻟﻤﺸﺮﻛﻴﻦ ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﺟﺰءا ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﻝ اﻟﻔﻘﺮاء ﻟﺪﻓﻊ ﺷﺮﻫﻢ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ اﻟﺠﻬﺎﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ، ﺛﻢ ﺳﻘﻂ ﺫﻟﻚ اﻟﺴﻬﻢ ﺑﻮﻓﺎﺓ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ اﻟﻠﻪ - ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ - ﻫﻜﺬا ﻗﺎﻝ اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻲ اﻧﻘﻀﻰ اﻟﺮﺷﺎ ﺑﻮﻓﺎﺓ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ اﻟﻠﻪ - ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ - ﻭﺭﻭﻯ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺧﻼﻓﺔ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺑﻜﺮ - ﺭﺿﻲ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻋﻨﻪ - اﺳﺘﺒﺬﻟﻮا اﻟﺨﻂ ﻟﻨﺼﻴﺒﻬﻢ ﻓﺒﺬﻝ ﻟﻬﻢ ﻭﺟﺎءﻭا ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﺮ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﺒﺬﻟﻮا ﺧﻄﻪ ﻓﺄﺑﻰ ﻭﻣﺰﻕ ﺧﻂ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺑﻜﺮ - ﺭﺿﻲ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻋﻨﻪ - ﻭﻗﺎﻝ: ﻫﺬا ﺷﻲء ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻜﻢ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ اﻟﻠﻪ - ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ - ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﺎ ﻟﻜﻢ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ اﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻋﺰ اﻟﻠﻪ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺛﺒﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﻭﺇﻻ ﻓﺒﻴﻨﻨﺎ ﻭﺑﻴﻨﻜﻢ اﻟﺴﻴﻒ ﻓﻌﺎﺩﻭا ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺑﻜﺮ - ﺭﺿﻲ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻋﻨﻪ - ﻭﻗﺎﻟﻮا ﻟﻪ: ﺃﻧﺖ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﻔﺔ ﺃﻡ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﺬﻟﺖ ﻟﻨﺎ اﻟﺨﻂ ﻭﻣﺰﻗﻪ ﻋﻤﺮ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ: ﻫﻮ ﺇﻥ ﺷﺎء

2. (قَوْلُهُ، وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ إلَخْ)

هَذَا الْقَوْلُ الَّذِي اقْتَصَرَ عَلَيْهِ الْمُصَنِّفُ قَوْلُ ابْنِ حَبِيبٍ (قَوْلُهُ وَقِيلَ إلَخْ) بِهَذَا صَدَّرَ ابْنُ عَرَفَةَ وَمُقْتَضَى عَزْوِهِ أَنَّهُ أَرْجَحُ (قَوْلُهُ وَحُكْمُهُ بَاقٍ لَمْ يُنْسَخْ) هَذَا قَوْلُ عَبْدِ الْوَهَّابِ وَصَحَّحَهُ ابْنُ بَشِيرٍ وَابْنُ الْحَاجِبِ قَالَ طفى وَالرَّاجِحُ خِلَافَةُ فَقَدْ قَالَ الْقَبَّابُ فِي شَرْحِ قَوَاعِدِ عِيَاضٍ الْمَشْهُورُ مِنْ الْمَذْهَبِ انْقِطَاعُ سَهْمِ هَؤُلَاءِ بِعِزَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَالْقَوْلُ الْأَوَّلُ مَبْنِيٌّ عَلَى الْقَوْلِ بِأَنَّ الْمَقْصُودَ مِنْ دَفْعِهَا إلَيْهِ تَرْغِيبُهُ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ لِأَجْلِ إنْقَاذِ مُهْجَتِهِ مِنْ النَّارِ وَالثَّانِي مَبْنِيٌّ عَلَى الْقَوْلِ بِأَنَّ الْمَقْصُودَ مِنْ دَفْعِهَا لَهُ تَرْغِيبُهُ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ لِأَجْلِ إعَانَتِهِ لَنَا وَقَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ إنْ دَعَتْ الْحَاجَةُ إلَى اسْتِئْلَافِهِمْ فِي بَعْضِ الْأَوْقَاتِ رُدَّ إلَيْهِمْ سَهْمُهُمْ وَهَذَا هُوَ الَّذِي رَجَّحَهُ اللَّخْمِيُّ وَابْنُ عَطِيَّةَ فَكَانَ عَلَى الْمُؤَلِّفِ الِاقْتِصَارُ عَلَى الْمَشْهُورِ أَوْ يَذْكُرُ الْقَوْلَ الَّذِي ذَكَرَهُ وَيُنَبِّهُ عَلَى تَرْجِيحِ اللَّخْمِيِّ اهـ بْن وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ هَذَا الْخِلَافَ الْوَاقِعَ فِي كَوْنِ التَّأْلِيفِ بِالدَّفْعِ مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ بَاقِيًا أَوْ نَسْخَ مُفَرَّعٍ عَلَى الْقَوْلِ الَّذِي مَشَى عَلَيْهِ الْمُصَنِّفُ مِنْ أَنَّ الْمُؤَلَّفَ كَافِرٌ يُعْطَى تَرْغِيبًا لَهُ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ أَمَّا عَلَى الْقَوْلِ الْمُقَابِلِ لَهُ الَّذِي ذَكَرَهُ الشَّارِحُ فَحُكْمُهُ بَاقٍ اتِّفَاقًا

3. ثُمَّ شَرَعَ فِي الصِّنْفِ الرَّابِعِ، فَقَالَ: (وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةُ) جَمْعُ مُؤَلَّفٍ مِنْ التَّأَلُّفِ، وَهُوَ جَمْعُ الْقُلُوبِ، وَهُوَ (مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَنِيَّتُهُ ضَعِيفَةٌ) فَيُتَأَلَّفُ لِيَقْوَى إيمَانُهُ وَيَأْلَفُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَيُقْبَلُ قَوْلُهُ فِي ضَعْفِ النِّيَّةِ بِلَا يَمِينٍ (أَوْ) مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَنِيَّتُهُ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ قَوِيَّةٌ، وَلَكِنْ (لَهُ شَرَفٌ) فِي قَوْمِهِ (يُتَوَقَّعُ بِإِعْطَائِهِ إسْلَامُ غَيْرِهِ) مِنْ نَظَائِرِهِ وَلَا يُصَدَّقُ فِي شَرَفِهِ إلَّا بِبَيِّنَةٍ (وَالْمَذْهَبُ أَنَّهُمْ يُعْطَوْنَ مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ) لِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: ﴿وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ﴾ [التوبة: ٦٠]؛ إذْ لَوْ لَمْ نُعْطِ هَذَيْنِ الصِّنْفَيْنِ مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ لَمْ نَجِدْ لِلْآيَةِ مَحْمَلًا. وَالْقَوْلُ الثَّانِي: لَا يُعْطَوْنَ؛ لِأَنَّ اللَّهَ - تَعَالَى - قَدْ أَعَزَّ الْإِسْلَامَ وَأَغْنَى عَنْ التَّأْلِيفِ بِالْمَالِ. وَالثَّالِثُ: يُعْطَوْنَ مِنْ خُمُسِ الْخُمُسِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ مُرْصَدٌ لِلْمَصَالِحِ، وَهَذَا مِنْهَا، وَكَانَ يَنْبَغِي لِلْمُصَنِّفِ أَنْ يُعَبِّرَ بِالْأَظْهَرِ لِأَنَّ الْخِلَافَ أَقْوَالٌ، وَخَرَجَ بِقَوْلِهِ: مَنْ أَسْلَمَ مُؤَلَّفَةُ الْكُفَّارِ، وَهُمْ مَنْ يُرْجَى إسْلَامُهُمْ وَمَنْ يُخْشَى شَرُّهُمْ، فَلَا يُعْطَوْنَ مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ قَطْعًا لِلْإِجْمَاعِ، وَلَا مِنْ غَيْرِهَا عَلَى الْأَظْهَرِ؛ لِأَنَّ اللَّهَ - تَعَالَى - أَعَزَّ الْإِسْلَامَ وَأَهْلَهُ وَأَغْنَى عَنْ التَّأْلِيفِ، وَلِخَبَرِ الصَّحِيحَيْنِ: «أَنَّهُ ﷺ قَالَ لِمُعَاذٍ: أَعْلِمْهُمْ أَنَّ عَلَيْهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُؤْخَذُ مِنْ أَغْنِيَائِهِمْ فَتُرَدُّ عَلَى فُقَرَائِهِمْ» . تَنْبِيهٌ حَصَرَ الْمُصَنِّفُ الْمُؤَلَّفَةَ فِي هَذَيْنِ الصِّنْفَيْنِ، وَلَيْسَ مُرَادًا، بَلْ هُمْ أَرْبَعَةُ أَصْنَافٍ؛ الْمَذْكُورَانِ. وَالثَّالِثُ: مَنْ يُقَاتِلُ مَنْ يَلِيهِ مِنْ الْكُفَّارِ، وَالرَّابِعُ: مَنْ يُقَاتِلُ مَنْ يَلِيهِ مِنْ مَانِعِي الزَّكَاةِ فَيُعْطَوْنَ إذَا كَانَ إعْطَاؤُهُمَا أَهْوَنَ عَلَيْنَا مِنْ جَيْشٍ يُبْعَثُ لِبُعْدِ الْمَشَقَّةِ أَوْ كَثْرَةِ الْمُؤْنَةِ أَوْ غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ. قَالَ الْمَاوَرْدِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُ: وَيُعْتَبَرُ فِي إعْطَاءِ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ احْتِيَاجُنَا إلَيْهِمْ وَنَقَلَهُ فِي الْكِفَايَةِ عَنْ الْمُخْتَصَرِ، وَهُوَ ظَاهِرٌ فِي غَيْرِ الصِّنْفَيْنِ الْأَوَّلَيْنِ. أَمَّا هُمَا فَلَا يُشْتَرَطُ فِيهِمَا ذَلِكَ كَمَا هُوَ ظَاهِرُ كَلَامِهِمْ، وَهَلْ تَكُونُ الْمَرْأَةُ مِنْ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ؟ وَجْهَانِ الصَّحِيحُ نَعَمْ.

4. (وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةُ)

جَمْعُ مُؤَلَّفٍ مِنْ التَّأْلِيفِ وَهُوَ جَمْعُ الْقُلُوبِ، وَهُوَ (مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَنِيَّتُهُ ضَعِيفَةٌ) فِي أَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ أَوْ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ نَفْسِهِ بِنَاءً عَلَى
ــ [حاشية الشبراملسي] كَغَيْرِهَا كِفَايَةَ الْعُمْرِ الْغَالِبِ أَشْكَلَ؛ لِأَنَّهَا إذَا عَادَتْ وَجَبَتْ نَفَقَتُهَا عَلَى الزَّوْجِ فَلَا يَبْعُدُ أَنَّهَا تُعْطَى كِفَايَتُهَا إلَى عَوْدِهَا وَوُجُوبِ نَفَقَتِهَا اهـ سم عَلَى حَجّ قَوْلُهُ (أَوْ كَسْبٍ حَلَالٍ) أَيْ وَلَيْسَ فِيهِ شُبْهَةٌ أَخْذًا مِمَّا قَدَّمَهُ فِي قَوْلِهِ أَوْ فِيهِ شُبْهَةٌ قَوِيَّةٌ إلَخْ (قَوْلُهُ فَيَجِدُ سَبْعَةً) أَيْ بَلْ أَوْ خَمْسَةً أَوْ سِتَّةً لِمَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ أَنَّ مِنْ يَمْلِكُ أَرْبَعَةً فَقِيرٌ عَلَى الْأَوْجَهِ (قَوْلُهُ: وَقَدْ لَا يَمْلِكُ إلَّا فَأْسًا) بِالْهَمْزِ كَمَا فِي الْمُخْتَارِ (قَوْلُهُ: كِفَايَةُ الْعُمْرِ الْغَالِبِ) أَيْ بِالنِّسْبَةِ لِلْأَخْذِ نَفْسِهِ، أَمَّا مُمَوَّنُهُ فَلَا حَاجَةَ إلَى تَقْدِيرِ ذَلِكَ فِيهِ بَلْ يُلَاحَظُ فِيهِ كِفَايَةُ مَا يَحْتَاجُهُ الْآنَ مِنْ زَوْجَةٍ وَعَبْدٍ وَدَابَّةٍ مَثَلًا بِتَقْدِيرِ بَقَائِهَا أَوْ بَدَلِهَا لَوْ عُدِمَتْ بَقِيَّةُ عُمْرِهِ الْغَالِبِ (قَوْلُهُ وَمِشَدٍّ) هُوَ الَّذِي يَنْظُرُ فِي مَصَالِحِ الْمَحَلِّ (قَوْلُهُ وَالْأَوْجَهُ جَوَازُ أَخْذِهِ) أَيْ مَا ذَكَرَهُ مِنْ الْقَاضِي إلَخْ (قَوْلُهُ: وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةُ) ظَاهِرُهُ أَنَّهُمْ يُعْطُونَ وَلَوْ مَعَ الْغِنَى اهـ سم عَلَى مَنْهَجِ (قَوْلُهُ: وَهُوَ جَمْعُ الْقُلُوبِ) أَيْ [حاشية الرشيدي] يُتَأَمَّلُ (قَوْلُهُ: مِنْ أَنَّ الزَّوْجَ أَوْ الْبَعْضَ لَوْ أُعْسِرَ) صَرِيحٌ فِي أَنَّ مَنْ أَعْسَرَ زَوْجُهَا بِنَفَقَتِهَا تَأْخُذُ مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ وَإِنْ كَانَتْ مُتَمَكِّنَةً مِنْ الْفَسْخِ، وَلَعَلَّ وَجْهَهُ أَنَّ الْفَسْخَ لَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْهُ اسْتِغْنَاؤُهَا، وَقَضِيَّةُ ذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ لَوْ تَرَتَّبَ عَلَيْهِ الِاسْتِغْنَاءُ بِأَنْ كَانَ لَهَا قَرِيبٌ مُوسِرٌ تَلْزَمُهُ نَفَقَتُهَا لَوْ فُسِخَتْ أَنَّهَا لَا تُعْطَى فَلْيُرَاجَعْ الْحُكْمُ (قَوْلُهُ: مَنْ مَعَهُ مَالٌ يَكْفِيهِ رِبْحُهُ إلَخْ) هَذَا هُوَ الْجَوَابُ وَحَاصِلُهُ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ الْمُرَادُ مِنْ كَوْنِ الْمَالِ يَكْفِيهِ الْعُمُرَ الْغَالِبَ أَنَّهُ تَكْفِيهِ عَيْنُهُ يَصْرِفُهَا كَمَا بَنَى عَلَيْهِ مَا عَلَيْهِ أَئِمَّتُنَا كَأَكْثَرِ الْعُلَمَاءِ أَنَّ الْإِيمَانَ: أَيْ التَّصْدِيقَ نَفْسَهُ يَزِيدُ وَيَنْقُصُ كَثَمَرَتِهِ فَيُعْطَى وَلَوْ امْرَأَةً لِيُقَوِّيَ إيمَانَهُ (أَوْ) مَنْ نِيَّتُهُ قَوِيَّةٌ لَكِنْ (لَهُ شَرَفٌ) بِحَيْثُ (يَتَوَقَّعُ بِإِعْطَائِهِ إسْلَامَ غَيْرِهِ) وَلَوْ امْرَأَةً (وَالْمَذْهَبُ أَنَّهُمْ يُعْطَوْنَ مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ) لِنَصِّ الْآيَةِ عَلَيْهِمْ فَلَوْ حُرِمُوا لَزِمَ أَنْ لَا مَحْمَلَ لَهَا، وَدَعْوَى أَنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى أَعَزَّ الْإِسْلَامَ عَنْ التَّأْلِيفِ بِالْمَالِ إنَّمَا يَتَوَجَّهُ فِيمَا لَا نَصَّ فِيهِ، عَلَى أَنَّهَا إنَّمَا تَتَّجِهُ رَدًّا لِقَوْلِ مَنْ قَالَ إنَّ مُؤَلَّفَةِ الْكُفَّارِ يُعْطَوْنَ مِنْ غَيْرِ الزَّكَاةِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يُسْلِمُونَ، وَعِنْدَنَا لَا يُعْطَوْنَ مِنْهَا قَطْعًا وَلَا مِنْ غَيْرِهَا عَلَى الْأَصَحِّ. وَالْقَوْلُ الثَّانِي لَا يُعْطَوْنَ. وَالثَّالِثُ يُعْطَوْنَ مِنْ خُمُسِ الْخُمُسِ الْمُرْصَدِ لِلْمَصَالِحِ وَهَذَا مِنْهَا وَمِنْ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ أَيْضًا مَنْ يُقَاتِلُ أَوْ يُخَوِّفُ مَانِعِي الزَّكَاةِ حَتَّى يَحْمِلَهَا مِنْهُمْ إلَى الْإِمَامِ وَمَنْ يُقَاتِلُ مَنْ يَلِيه مِنْ الْكُفَّارِ أَوْ الْبُغَاةِ فَيُعْطَيَانِ إنْ كَانَ إعْطَاؤُهُمَا أَسْهَلَ مِنْ بَعْثِ جَيْشٍ وَحَذَفَهُمَا؛ لِأَنَّ الْأَوَّلَ فِي مَعْنَى الْعَامِلِ، وَالثَّانِيَ فِي مَعْنَى الْغَازِي، وَظَاهِرُ قَوْلِهِ الْآتِي وَإِلَّا فَالْقِسْمَةُ عَلَى سَبْعَةٍ أَنَّ الْمُؤَلَّفَ بِأَقْسَامِهِ يُعْطَى وَإِنْ قَسَمَ الْمَالِكُ، وَهُوَ كَذَلِكَ كَمَا فِي الرَّوْضَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا خِلَافًا لِجَمْعٍ مُتَأَخِّرِينَ، وَجَزَمَ الشَّيْخُ فِي شَرْحِ مَنْهَجِهِ بِمَا قَالُوهُ يُنَاقِضُهُ قَوْلُهُ بَعْدَ قُبَيْلِ الْفَصْلِ الثَّانِي، وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةُ يُعْطِيهَا الْإِمَامُ أَوْ الْمَالِكُ مَا يَرَاهُ. نَعَمْ اشْتِرَاطٌ أَنَّ لِلْإِمَامِ دَخْلًا فِي الْأَخِيرَيْنِ ظَاهِرٌ لِتَعَلُّقِهِمَا بِالْمَصَالِحِ الْعَامَّةِ، فَلَا وَجْهَ لِتَوَقُّفِ إعْطَاءِ الْأَوَّلَيْنِ عَلَى نَظَرِ الْإِمَامِ، ثُمَّ اشْتِرَاطُ جَمْعٍ فِي إعْطَاءِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ الِاحْتِيَاجُ إلَيْهِمْ مُفَرَّعٌ عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَا يُعْطِي الْمُؤَلَّفَةَ إلَّا الْإِمَامُ، وَلَا يُنَافِي ذَلِكَ مَا مَرَّ فِي الْأَخِيرَيْنِ مِنْ اشْتِرَاطِ كَوْنِ إعْطَائِهِمَا أَسْهَلَ مِنْ بَعْثِ جَيْشٍ إذْ ذَلِكَ يُغْنِي عَنْ اشْتِرَاطِ الْحَاجَةِ إلَيْهِمَا بَلْ الضَّعْفُ وَالشَّرَفُ فِي الْأَوَّلَيْنِ كَافٍ فِي الْحَاجَةِ.

5. (رَابِعُهَا مُؤَلَّفٌ قَدْ ضَعُفَا فِي الدِّينِ نِيَّةً)
بِنَصْبِهَا تَمْيِيزًا أَيْ ضَعُفَتْ نِيَّتُهُ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ (وَقَوْلُهُ) إنَّهَا ضَعِيفَةٌ فِيهِ (كَفَى) فِي أَنَّهَا كَذَلِكَ؛ لِأَنَّ كَلَامَهُ يَشْهَدُ بِصَدْ قِه فَيَتَأَلَّفُ لِيَثْبُتَ عَلَى الْإِسْلَامِ (كَذَا) مُؤَلَّفٌ (شَرِيفٌ) فِي قَوْمِهِ (بِعَطَاءٍ أَعْلَنَهْ) أَيْ الْإِمَامُ (يُرْجَى) أَيْ يُرْجَى بِإِعْطَاءِ الْإِمَامِ لَهُ عَلَانِيَةً (اهْتِدَا أَمْثَالِهِ) أَيْ إسْلَامُهُمْ وَيُقْبَلُ شَرَفُهُ (بِالْبَيِّنَهْ) لَا بِقَوْلِهِ (وَمُتَأَلِّفٌ عَلَى الْجِهَادِ لِمَانِعِ الزَّكَاةِ وَالْأَعَادِي) أَيْ أَوْ لِلْأَعَادِي الَّذِينَ يَلُونَهُ مِنْ الْكُفَّارِ فَيُعْطَى (إنْ كَانَ مِنْ تَجْهِيزِ جَيْشٍ) أَيْ إنْ كَانَ إعْطَاؤُهُ (أَسْهَلَا) مِنْ تَجْهِيزِ جَيْشٍ إلَيْهِمْ لِبُعْدِ الشُّقَّةِ أَوْ كَثْرَةِ الْمُؤْنَةِ أَوْ غَيْرِهِمَا. فَالْمُؤَلَّفَةُ ثَلَاثَةُ أَصْنَافٍ أَوْ أَرْبَعَةٌ بِجَعْلِ الثَّالِثِ اثْنَيْنِ قَالَ الشَّارِحُ فِيهِ وَلَوْ عَبَّرَ بِجِبَايَةِ الصَّدَقَاتِ وَالدَّفْعِ عَنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ لَكَانَ أَعَمَّ لِيَشْمَلَ جِبَايَتَهَا مِنْ غَيْرِ مَانِعِهَا بَلْ مِمَّنْ يَسْتَثْقِلُ نَقْلَهَا لِلْإِمَامِ وَيَصْعُبُ إرْسَالُ سَاعٍ إلَيْهِمْ لِلْبُعْدِ أَوْ الْخَوْفِ وَيَدْخُلُ فِي الدَّفْعِ عَنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ قِتَالُ الْبُغَاةِ. اهـ. وَالِاعْتِرَاضَانِ سَاقِطَانِ أَمَّا الْأَوَّلُ فَيَمْنَعُ أَنَّ مَنْ جَبَى الزَّكَاةَ مِنْ غَيْرِ مَانِعِهَا يُعْطَى مِنْ سَهْمِ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ وَمَا قَالَهُ نَشَأَ لَهُ مِنْ تَعْبِيرِ الشَّيْخِ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ بِالْجِبَايَةِ وَقَدْ قَرَّرَهَا الْمُتَكَلِّمُونَ عَلَيْهَا بِقَوْلِهِمْ جَبَوْا الزَّكَاةَ بِقِتَالٍ أَوْ تَخْوِيفٍ وَهَذَا إنَّمَا يُقَالُ لِلْمَانِعِينَ وَقَدْ صَرَّحَ بِهِمْ فِي الْمَجْمُوعِ مَعَ تَعْبِيرِ الْمُهَذَّبِ بِمَا ذُكِرَ فَقَالَ: وَالرَّابِعُ قَوْمٌ يَلِيهِمْ قَوْمٌ عَلَيْهِمْ زَكَوَاتٌ يَمْنَعُونَهَا: وَأَمَّا الثَّانِي بَعْدَ تَسْلِيمِ أَنَّ الْبُغَاةَ كَالْكُفَّارِ فَسَاقِطٌ بِشُمُولِ تَعْبِيرِ النَّظْمِ بِالْأَعَادِي لَهُمْ وَلَعَلَّ هَذَا هُوَ سَبَبُ عُدُولِهِ إلَيْهِ عَنْ تَعْبِيرِ الْحَاوِي كَغَيْرِهِ بِالْكُفَّارِ وَيُعْتَبَرُ فِي إعْطَاءِ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ احْتِيَاجُنَا إلَيْهِمْ قَالَهُ الْمَاوَرْدِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُ (تَنْبِيهٌ) قَالَ الشَّيْخُ أَبُو حَامِدٍ لَا تَكُونُ الْمَرْأَةُ مِنْ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قَالَ فِي الرَّوْضَةِ وَهُوَ ضَعِيفٌ وَقَوْلُهُ فِيهَا آخِرَ الْبَابِ لَوْ دُفِعَ سَهْمُ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ وَالْغَازِي فَبَانَ الْمَدْفُوعُ إلَيْهِ امْرَأَةً فَكَمَا لَوْ بَانَ عَبْدًا أَيْ فَلَا يُجْزِئُ عَلَى الصَّحِيحِ مُفَرَّعٌ عَلَى قَوْلِ الشَّيْخِ أَبِي حَامِدٍ أَوْ [حاشية العبادي] (قَوْلُهُ: قُلْت وَلَا ذُكُورَتُهُ فِيمَا يَظْهَرُ) قَدْ يُقَالُ وَلَا بَصَرُهُ لِأَهْلِيَّةِ الْأَعْمَى لِمَا عُيِّنَ مِنْ أَخْذٍ وَدَفْعٍ (قَوْلُهُ: لَا قَاضٍ إلَخْ) قَالَ الشَّارِحُ الْعِرَاقِيّ وَمُقْتَضَى كَلَامِ النَّظْمِ وَأَصْلِهِ أَنَّ لِلْقَاضِي قَبْضَهَا وَصَرْفَهَا وَذَلِكَ فِي مَالِ أَيْتَامٍ تَحْتَ نَظَرِهِ أَمَّا غَيْرُهُمْ فَفِي دُخُولِ ذَلِكَ فِي عُمُومِ وِلَايَتِهِ إذَا لَمْ يَقُمْ الْإِمَامُ لَهُ مُتَكَلِّمًا وَجْهَانِ. اهـ. (قَوْلُهُ: وَيُعْتَبَرُ فِي إعْطَاءِ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ احْتِيَاجُنَا إلَيْهِمْ) أَيْ حَتَّى الْقِسْمُ الْأَوَّلُ صَرَّحَ بِهِ الْعِرَاقِيُّ هَذَا وَلَكِنْ سَيَأْتِي عَنْ الرَّوْضَةِ أَنَّ الْمَشْهُورَ عَدَمُ سُقُوطِ سَهْمِ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ إذَا قَسَّمَ الْمَالِكُ خِلَافًا لِلْمَاوَرْدِيِّ كَذَا بِخَطِّ شَيْخِنَا أَيْ فَمَا قَالَهُ الْمَاوَرْدِيُّ هُنَا مَبْنِيٌّ عَلَى رَأْيِهِ هُنَاكَ. (قَوْلُهُ: قَالَهُ الْمَاوَرْدِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُ) لَكِنَّهُ مُفَرَّعٌ عَلَى أَنَّ الْمُؤَلَّفَةَ لَا يُعْطَوْنَ إلَّا إنْ فَرَّقَ الْإِمَامُ [حاشية الشربيني] الْأُجْرَةِ أَوْ نَقْصُهُ عَنْهَا. اهـ. ق ل عَلَى الْجَلَالِ وَقَدْ يُقَالُ الْمُرَادُ بِهِ ثَمَنُ الزَّكَوَاتِ الْحَاصِلَةِ عِنْدَ الْإِمَامِ إذَا فَرَّقَ الْإِمَامُ وَوُجِدَتْ الْأَصْنَافُ كُلُّهَا أَوْ سُبْعُهَا إنْ وُجِدَتْ مِنْهَا سَبْعَةٌ وَهَكَذَا وَهَذَا فِي ابْتِدَاءِ الْقِسْمَةِ ثُمَّ مَا خَصَّهُ مَحْمُولٌ عَلَى الصِّنْفَيْنِ الْأَخِيرَيْنِ مِنْ الْأَرْبَعَةِ إذْ الْأَوَّلُ مِنْهُمَا فِي مَعْنَى الْعَامِلِ فِي الزَّكَاةِ وَالثَّانِي فِي مَعْنَى الْغَازِي وَكُلٌّ مِنْهُمَا لَا يَجُوزُ كَوْنُهُ امْرَأَةً (وَقَدْرُهُ) أَيْ الْمُعْطَى لِأَنْوَاعِ الْمُؤَلَّفَةِ (إلَى) رَأْيِ (الْإِمَامِ جُعِلَا) وَأَمَّا الْكُفَّارُ الَّذِينَ يَتَأَلَّفُونَ لِخَوْفِ شَرِّهِمْ أَوْ لِتَرْغِيبِهِمْ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ إذَا مَالُوا إلَيْهِ فَلَا يُعْطَوْنَ مِنْ زَكَاةٍ وَلَا غَيْرِهَا كَمَا أَفْهَمَهُ كَلَامُ النَّظْمِ هُنَا وَصَرَّحَ بِهِ بَعْدُ؛ لِأَنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى أَعَزَّ الْإِسْلَامَ وَأَهْلَهُ وَأَغْنَى عَنْ التَّأْلِيفِ

6. (الرَّابِعُ الْمُؤَلَّفَةُ قُلُوبُهُمْ) لِلنَّصِّ (وَحُكْمُهُمْ بَاقٍ)؛ لِأَنَّ النَّبِيَّ ﷺ " أَعْطَى الْمُؤَلَّفَةَ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ فَيُعْطَوْنَ عِنْدَ الْحَاجَةِ، وَيُحْمَلُ تَرْكُ عُمَرَ وَعُثْمَانَ وَعَلِيٍّ إعْطَاءَهُمْ عَلَى عَدَمِ الْحَاجَةِ إلَى إعْطَائِهِمْ فِي خِلَافَتِهِمْ، لَا لِسُقُوطِ سَهْمِهِمْ، فَإِنَّ الْآيَةَ مِنْ آخِرِ مَا نَزَلَ، وَأَعْطَى أَبُو بَكْرٍ عَدِيَّ بْنَ حَاتِمٍ وَالزِّبْرِقَانَ بْنَ بَدْرٍ، وَمَعَ وُجُودِ الْحَاجَةِ عَلَى مَمَرِّ الزَّمَانِ وَاخْتِلَافِ أَحْوَالِ النُّفُوسِ فِي الْقُوَّةِ وَالضَّعْفِ لَا يَخْفَى فَسَادُهُ. (وَهُمْ رُؤَسَاءُ قَوْمِهِمْ) وَكَذَا فِي الْمُقْنِعِ وَغَيْرِهِ وَهُمْ السَّادَةُ الْمُطَاعُونَ فِي عَشَائِرِهِمْ، فَمَنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ كَذَلِكَ لَا يُعْطَى مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ لِلتَّأْلِيفِ، وَإِنْ خَشِيَ شَرَّهُ بِانْضِمَامِهِ إلَى ظَالِمٍ؛ لِعَدَمِ تُنَاوِل اسْمِ الْمُؤَلَّفِ لَهُ (مِنْ كَافِرٍ يُرْجَى إسْلَامُهُ، أَوْ كَفُّ شَرِّهِ) لِمَا رَوَى أَبُو سَعِيدٍ قَالَ «بَعَثَ عَلِيٌّ وَهُوَ بِالْيَمَنِ بِذَهَبِيَّةٍ فَقَسَّمَهَا النَّبِيُّ ﷺ بَيْنَ أَرْبَعَةِ نَفَرٍ الْأَقْرَعِ بْنِ حَابِسٍ الْحَنْظَلِيِّ وَعُيَيْنَةَ بْنِ حِصْنٍ الْفَزَارِيِّ وَعَلْقَمَةَ بْنِ عُلَاثَةَ الْعَامِرِيِّ، ثُمَّ أَحَدِ بَنِي كِلَابٍ وَزَيْدِ الْخَيْرِ الطَّائِيِّ ثُمَّ أَحَدِ بَنِي نَبْهَانَ، فَغَضِبَتْ قُرَيْشٌ وَقَالُوا: تُعْطِي صَنَادِيدَ نَجْدٍ وَتَدَعُنَا؟ فَقَالَ: إنِّي إنَّمَا فَعَلْتُ ذَلِكَ لِأَتَأَلَّفَهُمْ» مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ قَالَ أَبُو عُبَيْدِ الْقَاسِمِ بْنِ سَلَامٍ وَإِنَّمَا الَّذِي يُؤْخَذُ مِنْ أَمْوَالِ أَهْلِ الْيَمَنِ الصَّدَقَةُ. (وَ) مِنْ (مُسْلِمٍ يُرْجَى بِعَطِيَّتِهِ قُوَّةُ إيمَانِهِ) لِمَا رَوَى أَبُو بَكْرٍ فِي كِتَابِ التَّفْسِيرِ عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فِي قَوْله تَعَالَى ﴿وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ﴾ [التوبة: ٦٠] قَالَ: هُمْ قَوْمٌ كَانُوا يَأْتُونَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ وَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ يَرْضَخُ لَهُمْ مِنْ الصَّدَقَاتِ، فَإِذَا أَعْطَاهُمْ مِنْ الصَّدَقَاتِ قَالُوا: هَذَا دِينٌ صَالِحٌ، وَإِنْ كَانَ غَيْرَ ذَلِكَ عَابُوهُ " أَوْ (يُرْجَى بِعَطِيَّتِهِ إسْلَامُ نَظِيرِهِ) لِأَنَّ أَبَا بَكْرٍ أَعْطَى عَدِيَّ بْنَ حَاتِمٍ وَالزِّبْرِقَانَ بْنَ بَدْرٍ مَعَ حُسْنِ نِيَّاتِهِمَا وَإِسْلَامِهِمَا رَجَاءَ إسْلَامِ نُظَرَائِهِمَا. (أَوْ) يُرْجَى بِعَطِيَّتِهِ (نُصْحُهُ فِي الْجِهَادِ أَوْ) فِي (الدَّفْعِ عَنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ) بِأَنْ يَكُونُوا فِي طَرَفِ بِلَادِ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَإِذَا أُعْطُوا مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ دَفَعُوا الْكُفَّارَ عَمَّنْ يَلِيهِمْ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَإِلَّا فَلَا (أَوْ كَفُّ شَرِّهِ كَالْخَوَارِجِ وَنَحْوِهِمْ، أَوْ قُوَّةً عَلَى جِبَايَةِ الزَّكَاةِ مِمَّنْ لَا يُعْطِيهَا) بِأَنْ يَكُونُوا إذَا أُعْطُوا مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ جَبَوْهَا مِمَّنْ لَا يُعْطِيهَا (إلَّا أَنْ يُخَوَّفَ وَيُهَدَّدَ، كَقَوْمٍ فِي طَرَفِ بِلَادِ الْإِسْلَامِ، إذَا أُعْطُوا مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ جَبَوْهَا مِنْهُ) أَيْ مِمَّنْ لَا يُعْطِيهَا إلَّا بِالتَّخْوِيفِ وَالتَّهْدِيدِ (وَيُقْبَلُ قَوْلُهُ فِي ضَعْفِ إسْلَامِهِ)؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يُعْلَمُ إلَّا مِنْ جِهَتِهِ. وَ(لَا) يُقْبَلُ قَوْلُهُ (إنَّهُ مُطَاعٌ فِي قَوْمِهِ إلَّا بِبَيِّنَةٍ)؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَتَعَذَّرُ إقَامَةُ الْبَيِّنَةِ عَلَيْهِ (وَلَا يَحِلُّ لِلْمُؤَلَّفِ الْمُسْلِمِ مَا يَأْخُذُهُ إنْ أُعْطِيَ لِيُكَفَّ شَرُّهُ، كَالْهَدِيَّةِ لِلْعَامِلِ) وَالرِّشْوَةِ. (وَإِلَّا) أَيْ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ أُعْطِيَ لِيُكَفَّ شَرُّهُ، كَأَنْ أُعْطِيَ لِيُقَوَّى إيمَانُهُ أَوْ إسْلَامِ نَظِيرِهِ، أَوْ نُصْحِهِ فِي الْجِهَادِ أَوْ الدَّفْعِ عَنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَنَحْوِهِ (حَلَّ) لَهُ مَا أَخَذَهُ، كَبَاقِي أَهْلِ الزَّكَاةِ.

7

• “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” Gilens and Page, Cambridge University Press

• The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy by Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady

• https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/limits-of-lobbying-null-effects-from-four-field-experiments-in-two-state-legislatures/D2CC79E232D63131A7DA707F8EB3A6A9

• https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-033123-124920

• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0010414020912282

• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2022.2094989

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41309-025-00255-9

8. 564 - فَإِنْ قِيلَ : هَلَّا جَزَمْتَ الْقَوْلَ بِأَنَّ عَالِمَ الزَّمَانِ هُوَ الْوَالِي [ وَ ] حَقٌّ عَلَى ذِي النَّجْدَةِ [ وَالْبَاسِ ] اتِّبَاعُهُ ، وَالْإِذْعَانُ لِحُكْمِهِ ، وَالْإِقْرَارُ لِمَنْصِبِ عِلْمِهِ .

قُلْنَا : إِنْ كَانَ الْعَالِمُ ذَا كِفَايَةٍ وَهِدَايَةٍ إِلَى عَظَائِمِ الْأُمُورِ ، فَحَقٌّ [ ص: 393 ] عَلَى ذِي الْكِفَايَةِ الْعَرِيِّ عَنْ رُتْبَةِ الِاجْتِهَادِ أَنْ يَتْبَعَهُ إِنْ تَمَكَّنَ مِنْهُ .

وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنِ الْعَالِمُ ذَا دِرَايَةٍ وَاسْتِقْلَالٍ بِعَظَائِمِ الْأَشْغَالِ ، فَذُو الْكِفَايَةِ الْوَالِي قَطْعًا ، وَعَلَيْهِ الْمُرَاجَعَةُ وَالِاسْتِعْلَامُ فِي مَوَاقِعِ الِاسْتِبْهَامِ ، وَمَوَاضِعِ الِاسْتِعْجَامِ .

565 - ثُمَّ إِذَا كَانَتِ الْوِلَايَةُ مَنُوطَةً بِذِي الْكِفَايَةِ وَالْهِدَايَةِ ، فَالْأَمْوَالُ مَرْبُوطَةٌ بِكِلَاءَتِهِ ، وَجَمْعِهِ وَتَفْرِيقِهِ وَرِعَايَتِهِ ; فَإِنَّ عِمَادَ الدَّوْلَةِ الرِّجَالُ ، وَقِوَامُهُمُ الْأَمْوَالُ . فَهَذَا مُنْتَهَى الْقَوْلِ فِي ذَلِكَ .