penjelasan syeikh al-qardawi dalam kitab fiqh al-zakah:
CHAPTER THREE
THOSE WHOSE HEARTS ARE BEING RECONCILED
Those whose hearts are being reconciled include persons who have recently been
brought to Islam, or who need to strengthen their commitment to this faith, and
individuals whose evil can be forestalled or who can benefit and defend Muslims.
Indications of the inclusion of this group
The very presence of this category as recipients of zakah emphasizes the fact that
zakah is not personal charity or merely a worship left to individual practice. Distribution
to this category is not, by nature, a job that individual acting independently can
undertake. It is a political decision made by the decision-making body of the state. Only
the state can determine the need at a given time for reconciling hearts and the
qualifications of deservants under this title.
Subdivisions of this category
A. One group in this category is that of individuals who are close to becoming
Muslims, or whose clans may become Muslim, like Safwan bin Ummayyah who was
granted safety by the Prophet the day Makkah was conquered. The Prophet gave him so
many camels loaded with goods after the battle of Hunain that he said, "This is the
giving of one who fears not poverty." Muslim and al Tirmidhi report from Sa'id bin al
Musayyib from Safwan his statement, "By God, when the Prophet gave me, he was the
person I hated most. He continued to give me until he became my most beloved
person."1 Safwan became a committed Muslim. Ahmad reports, via a correct chain, from
Anas that "Never was the Messenger of God (p) asked to give anything for accepting
Islam but he gave it. A man once came and asked to be given something for accepting
Islam. The Messenger ordered him to be given enough sheep to fill the distance
[between two hills] from the sheep collected as sadaqah. The man went back to his clan
saying, 'O my folks, accept Islam, for Muhammad gives like one who fears not
poverty."2
B. The second group includes those who may do harm to Muslims, to whom giving
zakah stops them from hurting Muslims. Ibn 'Abbas narrates that certain people came to
the Prophet who, if they are given sadaqat, praise Islam and declare it a good religion,
but if not, malign Islam.3
C. The third group consists of individuals who have just embraced Islam, to whom
giving helps them be steadfast. When al Zuhri was asked, who comprise those whose
hearts are being reconciled? he said, "Whoever embraces Islam from among the Jews
and Christians." He was then asked, "Even if they were rich?" "Even if they were rich,"
he answered.4 Al Hasan answered a similar question by saying, "They are individuals
who embrace Islam."5 It is understandable that persons who embrace Islam may have to
make several sacrifices and may be persecuted, ostracized, or even threatened
financially by the communities in which they live. Such a person is undoubtedly in need
of support and encouragement.
D. Also in this category are prominent Muslims whose social status is respected by
disbelievers who have status in their own communities, such that giving these Muslims
encourages their non-Muslim counterparts to consider embracing Islam. It is said that
Abu Bakr's giving to Adi bin Hatim and al Zibriqan bin Badr, who were obviously
committed Muslims, is of this nature.6
E. Muslim leaders whose faith is shaky can be given zakah in this category. Such
individuals may have great influence on Muslims, and giving them generously could
strengthen their faith and commitment. An example is the Makkans who were given
generously by the Prophet after the battle of Hunain.7
F. Muslims giving on the borders of a Muslim country who are expected to defend
Muslim land against any attack from enemies.
G. Muslims whose influence is needed in the zakah collecting process to persuade
would be rebels to pay their zakah. By using such influence, the government avoids
having to fight those who reject paying zakah.8
Al Shafi'i says those whose hearts are being reconciled include newcomers into
Islam, and that disbelievers must not be given sadaqah. He argues that the gift of the
Prophet (p) to some disbelievers after the battle of Hunain was not from zakah, but
either from fay' or the Prophet's personal property. Al Shafi'i adds, "God makes it
mandatory that the zakah of Muslims be rendered to Muslims and not to disbelievers.9
The Prophet told Mu'adh zakah was '. . . to be taken from the rich among them and
rendered to the poor among them.'"
Al Razi in his commentary quotes al Wahidi as saying, "God does not make
Muslims in need of reconciling the hearts of unbelievers. The head of state may find it
beneficial to Muslims to reconcile the hearts of some individuals. This is only
permissible if those individuals are Muslims, since it is not allowed to extend zakah to
unbelievers. Unbelievers whose hearts must be reconciled can be given from fay' and
not sadaqat." Al Razi comments, "The statement of al Wahidi may give the impression
that the Prophet gave unbelievers zakah, but such a thing never happened. However, the
verse of zakah distribution nowhere specifies that the hearts being reconciled are those
of unbelievers, since the term 'those whose hearts are being reconciled' may include
Muslims as well as non-Muslims."10
By the same token, since the term used in the Qur'an includes Muslims and non-
Muslims, there is no reason for restricting it to Muslims. Unbelievers may be reconciled
from zakah. Qatadah says "Those whose hearts were reconciled were often pagan
bedouins whom the Prophet (p) used to reconcile through giving zakah in order to bring
them to faith.11 In the saying from Anas quoted earlier about the man to whom the
Prophet gave sheep from zakah and who returned and said to his clan, "Accept Islam;
Muhammad gives like one who fears not poverty," it appears he was not Muslim before
being given. Granting unbelievers zakah in order to bring them to Islam, is, according to
al Qurtubi, "a form of jihad." "Unbelievers are three kinds: those who understand reason
and dialogue, those who do not and must be conquered, and those who can be
reconciled by generosity and benevolence. The Muslim state should deal appropriately
with each group."12
zakah, since the latter must not be given to non-Muslims." As for reconciling Muslim's
hearts, al Shafi'i is reported to disallow giving them after the state of Islam becomes
strong; the second view says it is permissible to give them the same way they were
given by the Prophet.18
As for Malikites, they also have two opinions, one allowing and one disallowing
giving this group zakah.19 Hanafites believe there must be no giving for reconciliation
after the death of the Prophet, (p). This, according to al Kasani, is the correct and
authentic view, because the Companions were unanimous on that count. Both Abu Bakr
and 'Umar did not give anything from zakah funds to reconciling hearts, and none of the
Companions disapproved of this. It is reported that upon the death of the Messenger of
God, individuals who were given zakah for reconciling their hearts asked Abu Bakr to
document this in writing. Abu Bakr did so, and they went and showed it to 'Umar,
whereupon 'Umar grabbed the document and tore it up, saying, "Indeed, the Messenger
of God (p) used to give you in order to reconcile you to Islam, but today God has
strengthened this religion. If you remain steadfast in Islam, [it is well and good] but if
you do not, there is nothing between us but the sword." They left him and ran to Abu
Bakr, complaining, "Is the Khalifah you or 'Umar?" Abu Bakr replied "He is if he so
wishes, " and approved of 'Umar's action. Al Kasani adds "this was known to the bulk
of the Companions, and none disapproved. This becomes a unanimous ijma'.
Furthermore, the Prophet used to give these people in order to reconcile them to Islam.
The Muslim state was then weak and its people were few, While the disbelievers were
more numerous and stronger. But thanks be to God, the Muslim state today is strong. Its
people are more in number and in strength, and it is well established on earth, while the
unbelievers are humiliated. It is a rule in Shari'ah that whenever a ruling can be
rationally attributed to a specific reason, if the reason is nulled, the ruling is dropped."20
In brief, the opinion of al Kasani can be summarized in two main points: One, the
ruling is nulled by the ijma' of the Companions, and two, the ruling of reconciliation is
caused by a rational reason, and it is dropped if its cause does not exist.21
Refuting claims of annulment
In fact, the two points of al Kasani are incorrect. The ruling is not annulled, and the
need to reconcile hearts has not ceased. The action of 'Umar does not indicate annulment
of this category, since those whose hearts were reconciled in a certain era may not be
needed in another era. At each time, the determination of the need to reconcile hearts
and the specification of individuals to be included is decided by the executive authority
according to what benefits Islam and Muslims.
Scholars of usul affirm that the dependency of a ruling on a defined element is an
indication that the element is the cause of the ruling. The spending of zakah in the case
on hand depends on the need for reconciliation of hearts. This indicated that
reconciliation is the reason for payment. Consequently, whenever the need for
reconciliation exists, payment is permissible, and vice versa. At a given time, the
process of reconciling certain persons may be finished, and the step taken by 'Umar
would then be taken, the same way that zakah workers would not be paid if at one point
there were no workers of zakah. That does not mean this category is eliminated from
future consideration. 'Umar did not annul payment to 'individuals whose hearts are being
reconciled' nor was there an ijma' on such annulment. He simply judged that there were
no deservant in that category at that point in time.22 The statement of al Hasan and al
Sha'bi that "today there are no individuals who are being reconciled, " is understood
similarly as a fact of the age they lived in.
Annulment of a ruling enacted by God can only be made by God through revelation
to His Messenger, and therefore can only take place during the time of the Message.
Annulment is dictated only when two authentic texts of Qur'an or Sunnah totally
contradict each other and we know that one of them came after the other
chronologically. The question on hand has only one, affirmative text, which determines
this category as a recipient of zakah. There is no text which contradicts this Qur'anic
verse. How can annulment be attributed to a verse in the Qur'an without a text from the
revelation? Al Shatibi writes, "Rulings of Shari'ah, after they are confirmed, cannot be
claimed null except by confirmed, authentic evidence, since the ruling were initially
obligated by completely authentic evidence. This is why scholars unanimously agree
that a correct but single-chain saying cannot annul Qur'an or sayings narrated by a
group, because the single-chain narration, though authentic and correct, is not absolutely
confirmed like narration by groups."23 Needless to say, the sayings and doings of a
Companion cannot annul Qur'anic-texts, especially since the action of the Companion
on hand does not even signify annulment. Ibn Hazm, even before al Shatibi, says, "It is
not permissible to any Muslim who believes in God and the Last Day to claim that
anything in Qur'an or Sunnah is annulled without affirmative evidence, because God
says, "We sent not an apostle but to be obeyed In accordance with the will of God"24
and "Follow, O people, the revelation given unto you from your Lord."25 Everything
sent by God as Qur'an or as Sunnah must be followed, and anyone who claims that
something is annulled implies that it must not be followed and is not required, which is
obviously disobedience to God, unless authentic and confirmed proof supports the
annulment. Accepting anything to the contrary of the above rule leads to wiping out the
whole of Shari'ah, since what would then be the difference between a claim of
annulment and a rejection of a verse or saying? This kind of behavior represents total
apostation from Islam. We cannot allow an ordinance made by God or His Apostle to be
waived, except by equally undeniable and authentic evidence."26
In conclusion, payment for reconciliation of hearts is part of zakah distribution,
determined by a clear verse in sura al Tawbah, and not annulled or idled by anything.
Abu 'Ubaid remarks, "This verse is a clear text. We know of no annulment of it in the
Book or in Sunnah. Whenever there are individuals who can be brought closer to Islam
by being given generously and it is not to the benefit of Muslims to let them be driven
away or to fight them, the Islamic state may decide to give them zakah in reconciliation
of their hearts. This action is supported by three facts: the texts of Qur'an and Sunnah,
promotion of the best interests of Muslims, and the hope that such individuals may be
guided to the path of Islam once they have the opportunity to study it."27 In al Mughni,
Ibn Qudamah, supporting the view of Ahmad that this category of recipients is
permanent, says:
On our side is the Book of God and the tradition of His Messenger. God mentions
reconciliation of hearts among the categories of zakah spending, and the Prophet used to give
generously for reconciliation, as stated in famous reports. He continued to do this until he
died. It is unacceptable to abandon the Book of God and the tradition of His Messenger
except by authentic annulment from God or His Messenger, and annulment is not confirmed
by mere possibility. Moreover, such annulment can only take place during the life of the
Prophet (p), because the texts required for annulment ceased to be revealed upon his death. A
text in Qur'an can only be annulled by another text in the Qur'an itself; there is no such text.
By what virtue is one asked to abandon Qur'an and Sunnah and revert to mere human
opinions, or statements of a Companion? Scholars do not consider the statement of a
Companion strong enough to stand in opposition to analogy, so how could such an opinion
stand against the Qur'an and Sunnah?! Al Zuhri too says "I know of nothing that annuls the
category of those whose hearts are being reconciled."28 Lastly, 'Umar's action does not
contradict Qur'an or Sunnah, since when Muslims do not need those individuals who were
paid in the past, they may choose to cease such payment, and if the need arises in the future
to pay the same individuals or others, that can be done. In reality, this principle applies to all
categories. A category may not exist at a certain time, but that does not mean it is eliminated
because it may exist at some later time.29
The need to reconcile hearts does not cease
The claim that there is no more need for heart reconciliation after the spread of Islam
and the establishment of its state is rejected for the following reasons:
1. Some Malikites assert that the reason for giving a person whose heart is being
reconciled is not that person's benefit to Muslims, but rather, bringing that person closer
to Islam and breaking the barriers that may be hindering him from opening his mind to
Islam. In other words, the purpose of the payment is to save the payee from the fire of
Hell.30 Thus, this payment is a form of calling for Islam [da'wah] that may be effective
with some people. It is the obligation of Muslims to help others seek the guidance of
God and lead them out of the darkness of ignorance and the agony of disbelief that leads
to Hellfire. A person may convert to Islam for material gains, but once he or she starts
understanding this religion, he or she may embrace it whole-heartedly. Abu Ya'la
reports from Anas that "A man came to the Messenger of God (p) embracing Islam for
some earthly gain, not accepting Islam except for that purpose, but by nightfall Islam
became more beloved to him than the whole earth and what is on it." And in another
version, "A man asked the Prophet (p) for some earthly material gain for which he
would embrace Islam . . . " and so on.31
The above applies when the person whose heart is being reconciled is an unbeliever,
but not all who are given under this title are unbelievers. Some may have embraced
Islam very sincerely, but are oppressed and persecuted by their communities. Giving
them is a required relief; it encourages them on the path of truth and supports them
while their faith is still tender.
2. The claim that there is no longer need for heart reconciliation is based on the
erroneous assumption that reconciliation is only done when the Muslim state is weak.
This is an unnecessary restriction and an unrealistic assumption. In contemporary
politics, we observe that strong states, like the United States, provide help to poor states
in order to reconcile these small and weak states to the objectives of the government of
the United States. Al Tabari says in this regard that "God makes zakah fulfill two
objectives, namely satisfying the needs of Muslims and strengthening the cause of
Islam. The cause of Islam covers rich and poor alike, since what is given for this
purpose is not aimed at erasing destitution, but at strengthening commitment to Islam.
Fighters for the sake of God are given zakah regardless of whether they are rich or poor.
Payments to those whose hearts are being reconciled are made regardless of their
wealth, because giving them is supporting the call of Islam. The Prophet (p) gave zakah
for reconciliation of hearts after God had opened for him most of Arabia and after the
Islamic state was well-established. There is no support in Sunnah for those who claim
that after the strengthening of Islam and its state there is no need for reconciling
hearts."32
3. Lastly, times have changed and Muslims are no longer masters of the land.
Actually, Islam has returned to being a stranger; the Muslim nation suffers under
pressure and aggression from many other states. Muslims are weak and can only
complain to God. If weakness is a reason for distribution towards reconciling hearts, it
exists today.
Who has the right to pay for heart reconciliation?
Decisions regarding reconciling hearts are the duty of the Islamic state. The Prophet
(p) and his Successors affirmed this responsibility as part of the state's executive affairs.
If the state does not fulfill its responsibility in collecting and distributing zakah, Muslim
organizations can make decisions about distributing to individuals whose hearts are
being reconciled.34 If the government does not undertake this duty, nor are there
organizations that distribute zakah, can a Muslim individual who distributes his own
zakah use part of it for reconciling an unbeliever's heart? In my opinion, a Muslim
individual must not make decisions concerning heart reconciliation, except in the very
rare case where no other destination of zakah is available. Such a case may apply to
Muslims living in non-Muslim countries, although it is preferable even under such
circumstances to dispose of zakah for the spread of Islam or to send it to the poor and
needy in Muslim countries.
How can the share of heart reconciliation be spent today?
If we agree that reconciliation of hearts by payment from zakah is permissible, to
whom should this share be given today? In order to answer this question, we must
remember that the purpose of this share is to bring hearts closer to Islam, affirm their
commitment to its cause, support the weak, and prevent harm that could be inflicted on
Muslims or on their religion. These objectives could be achieved by giving aid to non-
Muslim countries, persons, organizations, and tribes, to bring them closer to the cause of
Islam. It could also be extended to support research, and utilize mass media that teaches
the religion of Islam and defends its cause against attackers. Many people enter into the
fold of this religion every year who do not find encouragement or support from their
governments and communities or even from the governments of Muslim countries. The
share of heart reconciliation can be expended to such people, an idea consistent with the
opinions of al Zuhri and al Hasan. Christian missionaries spend millions every year for
the spread of their religion, although theirs does not have an institution like zakah
devoted to this purpose. It is true that Islam spreads on its own merit because of its inner
persuasive power, but it is equally true that most of those who embrace Islam in non-
Muslim countries do not receive even nominal support or compensation for the
sacrifices they make when they embrace Islam. There are many Islamic organizations
that attempt to fill this gap but are desperate for financial support, especially in areas
like Africa and many poor countries.
Payment for heart reconciliation from sources other than zakah
It is always possible that the Muslim state appropriate some of its funds derived from
sources other than zakah, for the purpose of heart reconciliation, if the other categories
of zakah recipients can hardly be satisfied with the total proceeds of zakah. This is
consistent with the opinion of al Shafi'i that payments for heart reconciliation to
unbelievers must be made from sources other than zakah.
Footnotes
1. Commentary of Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, p. 325.
2. Nayl al Awtar, Vol. 4, p. 166.
3. Commentary of al Tabari, Vol. 14, p. 313.
4. Ibid, p. 314, and al Musannaf, Vol. 3, p. 223.
5. Al Musannaf, ibid, and al Iklil, by al Suyuti, p. 119.
6. Commentary al Manar, Vol. 10, pp. 574-577.
7. Commentary al Qurtubi, Vol. 8, pp. 179-181.
8. Al Majmu', Vol. 6, pp. 196-198, and Ghayat al Muntaha and its commentary, Vol. 2,
p. 141 plus.
9. Al Umm, Vol. 2, p. 61.
10. Commentary al Razi, Vol. 16, p. 111.
11. Commentary al Tabari, Vol. 14, p. 314.
12. Commentary al Qurtubi, Vol. 8, p. 179.
13. Commentary al Tabari, Vol. 14, p. 314-316, and al Mughni, Vol. 2, p. 666.
14. Al Bahr, Vol. 2, p. 179, and Sharh al Azhar, Vol. 1, p. 513, and Fiqh al Imam Ja'far,
Vol. 2, p. 90.
15. Al Qurtubi, op. cit.
16. Al Nil, Vol. 2, pp. 134, 136.
17. Al Tabari, Vol. 14, p. 315.
18. Al Majmu', Vol. 6, pp. 197-198.
19. Al Qurtubi, op cit. Al Khatabi in Ma'alim al Sunan, Vol. 2, p. 231, says "their share is
fixed and must be paid to them." Ibn Qudamah says the same in al Mughni, Vol. 2, p.
666.
20. Al Bada'i, Vol. 2, p. 45.
21. Radd'al al Muhtar, Vol. 2, p. 82, quoting from al Bahr.
22. This disproves the claim of some contemporary writers that it is permissible to
neutralize or contradict texts if it is to Muslims' common benefit, which they base on
'Umar's action regarding those whose hearts were being reconciled. Such a claim is
made by Subhi al Mahmasani, among others, in his Falsafat al Tashri', p. 178, where
he claims that 'Umar dared to oppose the text about reconciliation, because such
opposition was spurred by the public interest of Muslims." Similarly, Mahmud al
Lababidi makes the claim that "the nation, as represented by its consultative authority,
can freeze or oppose certain texts for the common benefit." See his article, "al Sultahal
Tashri'yyah fi al Islam" ["Legislative Authority in Islam] in the review Risalat al
Islam issued by Daral Taqrib Bayn al Madhahib, Cairo. The latter uses this action of
'Umar as an example. Scholars from al Azhar replied to al Lababidi in several articles,
such as the article "Bahth 'ala Bahth" ["analysis of an Article"] by the late Muhammad
Muhammad al Madani.
23. Al Muwafaqat, Vol. 3, p. 64.
24. Sura al Nisa', 4:64.
25. Sura al A'raf, 7:3.
26. Al Ihkam fi Usul al Ahkam, part 20, chapter titled "How to Recognize Annulled
Texts," p. 458, Vol. 1, al Imam print.
27. Al Amwal, p. 607.
28. Hanafites differ on determining factors that annul the ruling of heart reconciliation,
which is confirmed by a text in the Qur'an. Some of them claim the annulling factor is
ijma', attempting to make ijma' out of 'Umar's position. This is farfetched, as explained
above. Some try to find documentation on which such ijma' is based. Here they also
diverge into two groups. Ibn Nujaim in al Bahr presents the verse in sura al Kahf,
"Say: The truth is from your Lord; let he who will believe and let he who will reject
it," which was quoted by 'Umar in arguing with his opponents. Ibn 'Abidin says, "Ijma
cannot be the annulling factor, because annulment cannot be made after the death of
the Prophet." Others claim the annulling factor is the Prophet's instructions to Mu'adh
when he sent Mu'adh to Yemen. See Radd al Muhtar, Vol. 2, p. 83.
The fact is that all these attempts are fruitless. The verse from sura al Kahf is Makkan.
It cannot annul a Madinan verse, which was revealed a long time after. Additionally,
there is no contradiction between the two verses. The saying from Mu'adh is not an
annulling factor; it mentions only the poor as recipients because the poor are the most
important category. If this saying annuls one category, it must eliminate all the rest of
them--why should it only eliminate the category of heart reconciliation? 'A1a' al Din
bin 'Abd al Aziz, a Hanafite, says "The best way out is to assume that the Prophet's
action was appropriate to his time, because strengthening the call of Islam could be
served by payment to reconciling hearts. After his death, the same objective could be
achieved without such payments." But Hanafites do not generally agree with the
explanation of 'Ala' al Din, which is clear from the efforts of Ibn al Humam to negate
'Ala's opinion. See Commentary al Alusi, Vol. 3, p. 327.
29. Al Mughni, Vol. 2, p. 666.
30. Hashiyat al Sawi on Bulghat al Salik, Vol. 1, p. 232.
31. The author of Majma' al Zawa'id says it is "reported by Abu Ya'la; the men of its
chain are among the men of the correct collections." Vol. 3, p. 104.
32. Commentary al Tabari, ed. Shakir, Vol. 14, p. 316.
33. Hanafites themselves say that if one attributes a ruling to certain reasons, and those
reasons cease to exist, that is not sufficient proof to negate the ruling, since a ruling
does not require the continuous presence of its reason, as in the case of slavery. Thus
there is always need for proof to indicate that such a ruling is waived, even when its
reason does not exist anymore. But they go on to argue that we need not specify the
reason whenever ijma' exists. See Radd al Muhtar, Vol. 2, pp. 82-83.
34. In Sharh al Azhar, Vol. 1, p. 513, it is said that reconciling hearts is allowed if done by
the state for the benefit of Muslims, but is not permissible to anyone else. Some Zaidis
allow individual zakah payers to give toward heart reconciliation.
