Giving Zakat for Political Campaigns

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?

Answer:

All praise is due to Allāh ﷻ, and may peace and salutations be upon the Prophet ﷺ.

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.

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. There is also the report in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim in which gold sent by ʿAlī (rḍa) from Yemen was divided among several tribal leaders, and the Prophet ﷺ said, “I only did that to win them over.” And it is reported from Ibn ʿAbbās (rḍa) that the Prophet ﷺ gave to a group of non-Muslims solely to minimize their criticism against Islam; and that Abū Bakr (rḍa) gave to non-Muslims in his caliphate; but in the reign of ʿUmar (rḍa), he decided that there was no longer any need in his time to do so.¹

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.

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  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

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 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 And Ibn Taymiyyah also stated that this category includes non-Muslims for whom giving zakat helps in repelling their evil from Muslims.⁶ There are many more excerpts of a similar nature that can be found in classical works of law.

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 And Sh. Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī (d. 2022) opines that this category includes those “…for whom it is intended to incentivize their hearts to convert to Islam, or to strengthen their Islam, or to stop their evil from the Muslims, or to hope that they will benefit the Muslims by defending them, or helping them against an enemy, and other similar factors.”⁸  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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.

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:

• Firstly, as a default, reputable institutions collect and distribute zakat funds on behalf of the body of Muslim in any locality or country. These institutions should be composed of diverse groups of scholars and relevant specialists, and operate with full transparency and accountability, so that trust is built and maintained in the community. The category of ‘al-mu’allafah qulūbuhum’ has always been the purview of the walī al-amr (the leader of the community), hence individuals should not decide by themselves which candidates and causes are worthy. It is imperative that the Muslim communities develop and support such institutions and lobbying groups that garner community support, act transparently, earn the trust of the people, and establish a track record of positive impact that benefits Ummatic causes; and it is to such institutes that zakat may be given. These institutions should be annually monitored and regularly audited to ensure that they are doing the job in a manner that fulfills the goals of the Sharīʿah for this category.
• Secondly, that the causes for which such funds are spent (as decided by such institutions and its advisory board) are directly related to benefitting the Ummah, either in one’s own country or locality (such as countering a clearly anti-Muslim politician with an agenda of harm) or internationally (such as helping a candidate who is opposed to genocide). The goal of such funds must be to benefit the welfare of the Muslim community; hence any issue not related to the welfare of the Ummah cannot be considered zakat-eligible. As well, no lobbying should be done with the intention of currying favor for certain individuals in order to further causes not related to the Ummah as a whole. 
• Thirdly, that there be reasonable signs to believe that such funds would help the cause for which it is being raised. (Note that it is understood that no one can be certain of the future; what is required is a strong presumption, or ghalabat al-ẓann, in looking at the final results, or iʿtibār al-ma’ālāt, since even when the Prophet (SAW) gave, there was no guarantee that it would have an impact on the tribal chieftains). 
• Fourthly, given that this category is one of eight in the Quran, and that there will always be a need to fulfill to all of the other categories, and in particular the needy and poor, the Council strongly advises that one does not give a majority of zakat to this category alone; rather only a portion should be given. We note here that the primary goal of zakat shall always remain to take care of the poor and to feed the hungry; this category of mu’allafah al-qulūb is a secondary goal of zakat and should remain as such. (As a suggestion, and not a legal ruling, perhaps up to a maximum of 1/8^th of one’s total zakat amount may be given to this category, while the remaining should be distributed in the other categories.)
• Fifthly, that the institutions assigned with this task must abide by the local laws and take advice of legal counsel to ensure that they do not contravene their country’s laws related to campaign financing.

In conclusion, the members of this Council stress the need to undertake the utmost caution when it comes to zakat money and underscore the sanctity of the trust placed on those responsible for distributing zakat. It is known that there is abuse that occurs in some zakat collection and distribution, and this fatwā does not wish to provide any excuse to increase that abuse. The conditions above are clearly laid out, and the members of this Council cannot be responsible for institutes or individuals who do not abide by these conditions. The goal of this fatwā is to help and aid the Muslim community, and hence to preserve the greatest goals (maqāṣid) of Islamic law: ḥifẓ al-dīn, the preservation of the religion, and ḥifẓ al-nafs, the preservation of life. As well, while this fatwā is about zakat, it should be noted that there should be no two opinions regarding the permissibility of general ṣadaqah and other types of contributions being given for such causes, and the encouragement to give zakat to this category should not diminish other types of contributions.

And Allāh ﷻ knows best.

Approved on the 30th of January, 2026 CE (11th of Shaʿbān, 1447 AH) jointly by:

Note: The Fiqh Council issues fatāwā by a majority vote of its members, and allows for its members to have, and publish, dissenting opinions if they feel the need to do so. In the case of this fatwā, some our esteemed members wished to explain their reasons for holding an alternative view, which is elaborated in the following paper.

Dissenting Opinion to the Council’s Position

1. Ibn Qudāmah, al-Mughnī, vol 9, p. 317. ↩︎
2. For a detailed discussion of the more prominent opinions, one may consult: al-Qaradawi, Yusuf, Fiqh al-Zakat, vol. 2, p. 636 onwards. ↩︎
3. Ibn Qudāmah writes in al-Mughnī, vol. 4, p. 124:
   وأحكامهم كلها باقية، وبهذا قال الحسن والزهري وأبو جعفر محمد بن علي. وقال الشعبي ومالك والشافعي وأصحاب الرأي: انقطع سهم المؤلفة بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وقد أعز الله الإسلام وأغناه عن أن يتألف عليه رجال، فلا يعطى مشرك تألفا بحال. قالوا: وقد روي هذا عن عمر رضي الله عنه، ولنا كتاب الله وسنة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فإن الله تعالى سمى المؤلفة في الأصناف الذين سمى الصدقة لهم والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: إن الله تعالى حكم فيها فجزأها ثمانية أجزاء، وكان يعطي المؤلفة قلوبهم كثيرا في أخبار مشهورة، ولم يزل كذلك حتى مات، ولا يجوز ترك كتاب الله ولا سنة رسوله إلا بنسخ، والنسخ لا يثبت بالاحتمال، ثم إن النسخ إنما يكون في حياة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم؛ لأن النسخ إنما يكون بنص، ولا يكون النص بعد موت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وانقراض زمن الوحي ثم إن القرآن لا ينسخ إلا بقرآن، وليس في القرآن نسخ كذلك ولا في السنة، فكيف يترك الكتاب والسنة بمجرد الآراء والتحكم أو بقول صحابي أو غيره؟! على أنهم لا يرون قول الصحابي حجة يترك لها قياس، فكيف يتركون به القرآن والسنة؟!. قال الزهري: لا أعلم شيئا نسخ حكم المؤلفة، على أن ما ذكروه من المعنى لا خلاف بينه وبين الكتاب والسنة، فإن الغنى عنهم لا يوجب رفع حكمهم، وإنما يمنع عطيتهم حال الغنى عنهم، فمتى دعت الحاجة إلى إعطائهم أعطوا، وكذلك جميع الأصناف، إذا عدم منهم صنف في بعض الزمان سقط حكمه في ذلك الزمن خاصة، فإذا وجد عاد حكمه كذا هنا. ↩︎
4. Ibn Qudāmah, ʿUmdah al-Fiqh, p. 39. ↩︎
5. Ibn ʿArafah, al-Mukhtaṣar al-Fiqhī, vol. 2, p. 445. ↩︎
6. Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā vol. 28, p. 290. ↩︎
7. Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, vol. 10, p. 440. ↩︎
8. Al-Qaraḍāwī, Fiqh al-Zakat, vol. 2, p. 636. ↩︎
9. Ibn Manīʿ, “Maṣrif al-Mu’allafah Qulūbuhum” in Majallā al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyyah, vol. 29, pps. 111-124. ↩︎
10. Al-Juwaynī writes, “And if the time is devoid of a ruler, then it is a duty upon the inhabitants of every town to put forward, from among them, those endowed with forbearance and sound judgment to take charge.” See his Ghiyāth al-Umam, vol 1, p. 386. ↩︎