Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Discussion

Zakat is a claim on wealth, not a gift. What does that do to the charity versus justice debate?

Nur Aisyah Rahman Fellow
· 5 replies · 221 views
JusticeIndianIslamicJewishIslamic jurisprudenceAbu Dharr al-GhifariAl-Ghazali#charity-and-justice#dasvandh#tzedakah#zakat
Follow

Many debates about distributive justice I read, especially in English, assume a sharp line: justice is what can be demanded and enforced; charity is good but optional, a gift. Taxes for the first, donations for the second.

Zakat doesn't sit comfortably on either side. It is one of the pillars of Islam, obligatory on those whose wealth passes a threshold. The Qur'an lists the categories of people entitled to it, the poor, the needy, those in debt, travellers and others, and describes the poor as having a known right in the wealth of the believers. It's not the giver's gift. Part of the wealth was never fully the giver's to begin with.

And there's a minority voice I find moving. Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, a companion of the Prophet, argued that hoarding wealth beyond one's needs was itself wrong, citing the Qur'anic warning against those who hoard gold and silver. The majority did not follow him, and he ended his life in a kind of exile. But the tradition remembered him.

I work on fairness in algorithms by day, where people talk about allocation and entitlement constantly, and I've started wondering whether zakat-style frameworks say something the Western charity-versus-justice debate misses. Islamic frameworks are not reducible to one distributive formula, and the details vary across schools of law. I'd love to hear from other traditions that have similar structures.

LikeReply
Follow5 replies

Members reply here. Reading is always free.

Sign in to reply

5 replies

  1. Imam Bilal Hussain

    Fellow

    Historically zakat was enforced, not only encouraged. Abu Bakr, as the first caliph, fought those who refused to pay it after the Prophet's death. So in the legal sense it is a matter of justice: the community can compel it.

    But al-Ghazali, in the book of the Ihya' devoted to the inner meanings of zakat, insists on the other side too. Giving purifies the giver, trains him out of love of money, and should be done discreetly so as not to humiliate the recipient. So zakat is both: a right of the poor and a discipline of the rich. It is the Western dichotomy that seems artificial from inside it.

    Helpful · 1
  2. Rabbi Eliana Gutman

    Fellow

    Jewish tradition has the same structure. The word tzedakah comes from the root for justice, tzedek, not from a word for kindness. It's obligatory, and the Talmud says that even a poor person who lives on tzedakah must give some.

    Maimonides famously ranks eight levels of giving in the Mishneh Torah. The highest is not the largest gift but helping someone become self-sufficient, by a loan, a partnership or a job, so that they no longer need to ask. That's a striking thought for distributive justice: the best transfer is one that ends the need for transfers.

    Helpful · 2
  3. Javier Morales

    Fellow

    Economically, zakat is unusual: 2.5 per cent on wealth held above a threshold for a year, rather than a tax on income. That makes it closer to a modest wealth tax than to anything most states levy today. It's also tied to need categories rather than to equality as such. So in the usual taxonomy I'd place it near sufficientarianism, getting everyone above a threshold, with a strong anti-hoarding current running through it, Abu Dharr's current.

    Helpful · 3
    1. Nur Aisyah Rahman

      Fellow

      Javier, sufficientarian with an anti-hoarding current is a good description. Eliana, the Maimonides ranking is beautiful. It's also what a good loan model would do if it were designed for the borrower rather than the lender, which is not how most are designed.

  4. Harpreet Kaur Grewal

    Contributor

    Sikh practice has dasvandh, giving a tenth of what you earn, and the langar, the free kitchen where everyone sits on the floor together and eats the same food regardless of caste or wealth. The langar is the part that I think the charity-versus-justice debate misses most. It's not only a transfer of food. It's an equalising of the room. Iris Marion Young would say it changes the structure, not just the distribution.

    Helpful · 1