A Quick Answer
No. But some would answer yes. Both are correct choices.
Yet following competent scholars familiar with your conditions and who have done comparative studies of Zakat’s issues and come to informed judgments is, in this opinion, a wiser and easier choice.
For the Nos
There is an excellent argument to be made that there is serious benefit in following the Zakat rulings of diverse scholars who have benefitted from the comparative study of current issues of Zakat facing the Muslim Ummah, or Community, in the context of these irregular and dire times for Muslims and Islam in the world.
For the Yeses
Adhering to the Zakat rulings of a madhhab may be a preference for those who believe conscientiously following a particular Islamic legal school of thought gives them a consistency in their religion that can be trusted to connect them to a noble legacy of time-tested, correct practice of Islam in the context of these irregular and dire times for Muslims and Islam in the world.
We generally address both these views in our answers to Zakat questions, reporting notable and majority positions on Zakat from comparative scholars, while noting prominent exceptions from the madhahib schools.
What are the primary disagreements about Zakat between the schools of Law (fiqh)?
Before answering this question, we should first outline some basics about the schools of Law (s. madhhab, pl. madhahib) and how they differ from current systems of what is called positive law, which most of us live under. “Positive” law refers to manmade rules that compel or prescribe action.
If you consider yourself informed about the traditional Muslim legal schools and just want to know about where they generally differ with regard to Zakat, you can skip points 1-7 that follow.
The Madhhab in Light of Modern Legal Systems
Seven Explanations
What is a madhhab? Muslims developed a historically and still unparalleled multiway legal tradition that coalesced around Schools of Law. Each school is called a madhhab (This word is pronounced in two syllables: madh (ending in the ‘th’ sound as in the word ‘the’) and heb (rhyming with the English word ‘web’)). The plural is madhâhib, with a long ‘â’ sound in the middle, as in the word ‘back’. English-speaking Muslims often Anglicize the plural as ‘madhhabs.
A madhab is a mapped-out ‘way’ or ‘route’ meant to guide a person to keep to Islam’s famous Straight Way (sirat al-mustaqim) in accordance with its principle sources.
“Guide us along the straight way” (Surat Al-Fatihah, 1:6)
Madhhabs have been indispensably valuable especially in defining conduct in matters not directly addressed in the Quran or by the Prophet, on him be peace.
Four main madhhabs emerged lastingly among Muslims in the regions where they mostly lived. Each of them is rooted in Revelation, that is, in the Quran, the divine verbatim Word of God, and in the practice, instruction, and approvals of the Prophet Muhammad, on him be peace, God’s final Messenger, to whom He revealed the Quran. This collective exemplification of Islam by the Prophet, on him be peace, is called the Sunnah, or life-way.
These madhhab schools of law found their origins in brilliant original legal thinkers, clearly genius in their intellectual capacities and also severely tested exemplars of morality and piety in their diligent practice of Islam. They sought to explain Islam’s practice to Muslims according to consistent principles of understanding Islam’s primary sources in matters in which the Quran and the Sunnah were not explicit. They gathered around them students of law who followed and developed their criterion and methods. Here are their names, the cities of their origin or practice, and their eras. They can be considered teachers of their successors:
Abu Hanifa al-Nucman (80-148 h / 699-767 ce) Kufa, Iraq
Malik ibn Anas (93-179 h / 711-795 ce) Madinah
Muhammad ibn Idris Al-Shafici (150-204 h / 767(8)-820 ce) Madinah and Cairo
Ahmad ibn Hanbal 164-241 h / 780-855 ce) Baghdad
Muslims, from the very beginning and tellingly, came to call the realm of law what it actually is – the human “understanding,” or fiqh, of Revealed truth. The latter, Heavenly Revelation (wahy) is itself the absolute truth, but our human capacity to discern that truth is subject to our mortal limitations, which makes our reflection on it our “understanding,” or fiqh.
The linguistic origin of the Arabic word ‘fiqh’ comes from the sound that bubbles in a boiling fluid make when they “pop” through its surface (fik, an onomatopoeia).
This reflects the depth of thought the knowledgeable engage in when it comes to discerning and giving rulings on matters of religion. Again, our scholars only brought their thinking to bear on legal rulings in which the Quran and the Prophet, on him be peace, were not explicit or categorically direct. On matters in which Allah in the Quran, and His Prophet, on him be peace, in his Sunnah are explicitly clear, there is no second opinion or legal question.
“Thus it is not ever for a believing man or a believing woman, when God and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have for themselves a contrary choice in their affairs. For whoever disobeys God and His Messenger has truly strayed into clear misguidance.” (Surat Al-Ahzab, 33:36)
It is the mark of the believers, and especially the knowledgeable among us, that they accept this. Allah says:
“He is the one who has sent down the Book to you. In it are verses clearly decisive in their meaning. They are the mother of the Book. And others are ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they pursue whatever is ambiguous in it, thereby seeking dissension and thereby seeking to distort its interpretation. But none truly knows its ultimate interpretation except God. Thus, those well grounded in knowledge say: We believe in it. All of it is from our Lord. And none is truly mindful of this but those who are endowed with understanding.” (Surat Aal CImran, 3:7)
The best of us in this endowment of understanding are our scholars, that is, our Culama’.
The Muslim Schools of Law resoundingly agree on all the essentials of Islam and its primary obligations. They concur on all our requisite beliefs and a vast majority of the precepts, duties, and rulings that are to govern our lives in matters of worship (cibadah) and transactions (mucamalat), personal, public, and of state.
If we were to imagine the whole of these legal rulings as a pie in four portions, then our legal scholars can be said to delve into matters of correct implementation of Islam’s rulings in, at most, one portion of the four, while in agreement on all the rest. And even in this portion of varying positions, there are majority concurrences in most matters of substance.
Also, while each school has prominent collective positions on fiqh, that is, Islamic legal issues, there is internal disagreement among the luminaries of each tradition, sometimes agreeing with the ruling of scholars of other schools.
But, crucially, unlike the positive-law systems now ubiquitous in the world that come out of the western legal tradition – a tradition that has tended toward a narrowing, yet ever-changing, binary statement of the legal and illegal, or toward a common and civil law of one right way and all else wrong – the rulings of the madhahib, or legal schools of Islam, are all valid and legal, even when they disagree, and even if there are multiple legal positions that are at variance with one another. Nor can a true Muslim state ban Muslims from the practice of valid positions that it does not endorse for itself.
These rulings are, in fact, not generated from a central authority. Only qualified independent legal practitioners (s. mujtahid), who are widely recognized by their peers as such, can exercise ijtihad, or independent legal reasoning, and issue rulings. Even a state and its ruling authorities must seek out such legal opinion for matters of state.
Most Muslims, unless they are deeply engaged with fiqh, will likely never meet up with true mujtahids. What most of us come in contact with are scholars or people trained in the science of fiqh who can adequately report the rulings of these schools. They are not (qualified in) creating legal rulings themselves.
Because most of us today have been habituated to thinking in terms of a single way or ruling being right and all others wrong, where two or several ways cannot coexist as right, especially in terms of legality, at the same time, we often become frustrated by the abundance of legal choice we face when we want the answer to something in Islam. We simply want someone to tell us do this and not that.
Indeed, most Muslims today, because of our relative ignorance about Islam, consider a multiplicity of answers, disagreement between schools, and numerous valid legal options for one question as a sign of backwardness.
This is because we have been so thoroughly inculcated with the prevailing idea of a constant “progress” of human beings toward what is better, which is in turn equated with one right way or truth against all others. It is an ever-narrowing path, a chute that cancels out all other options or opinion. Today is always better than yesterday, its moral imperatives superior to any received morality before it, while the future holds inevitable promise of advancement of thought, life, and enlightenment over an invariably dimmer past.
The truth is we Muslims of the modern era have grown impatient with a religion of mercy that has the breadth to encompass the sprawling reach of imperfect, individual creatures like ourselves within the divers wellsprings of its law (formally instituted nowhere now among Muslims, though still sought out and practiced by numbers of us as individuals).
Instead of mandating the coercion of all of us – regardless of circumstance, thought, or predisposition – upon today’s randomly declared straight and narrow by some manmade modern legal system, Islam treats us, in terms of law, as diverse, rational, limited beings of profoundly different conditions and heritages but of a single immutable human soul that keeps us all of the selfsame essence, from the first man to the last.
In other words, Islam treats us as beings unchangeably equal in our humanity – unlike the modern worldly philosophies and the systems they’ve constructed, including their legal complexes, which uniformally cry equal but invariably raise some human beings as lords over the rest of us.
Having said this, the fiqh of Zakat has suffered from two problems: An overabundance of disagreement on the entire range of its component issues; and a great lack of ongoing critical engagement with its comparative scholarship and presentation in order to simplify its common implementation in our times for people by explaining and putting forward its best rulings.
The primary disagreements on Zakat between madhahib?
First, all the schools completely agree that yearly Zakat is a divine obligation on Muslims from their eligible wealth, from the three principle sources of Law (fiqh): the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet, on him be peace, and in accordance with binding scholarly Consensus (Ijmac).
Yet differences of opinion arise in each of Zakat’s five main dimensions:
The persons obliged to pay Zakat
The wealth-types subject to Zakat
The wealth thresholds (nisab) and rates at which Zakat comes due
The time when Zakat payments come due
The recipients to whom Zakat is due
Within these main aspects of Zakat, there are at least 36 general areas of disagreement, with multiple opinions within each of these spheres of dispute.
Examples of scholarly dispute from Zakat’s five dimensions?
on whom is zakat obligatory?
All schools agree that every Muslim who is free, biologically mature, sane, and sole owner of any kind of Zakat-eligible wealth at its minimum threshold set by the Prophet, on him be peace, for its established duration is obligated to pay its Zakat at its date of maturity.
But does that obligation fall upon the orphan, the child, the mentally incompetent, the non-Muslim living under Muslim governance, or the person who has a retirement or trust fund who has Zakat-sufficient wealth but is not legally its sole owner free and clear without encumbrance?
These are issues in this category about which our scholars disputed. You can read more detailed examples of this in our articles Are Children and Those Lacking Mental Capacity Obligated to Pay Zakat? and Is Zakat Owed on 401(k) Plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA)?
on what kinds of wealth is zakat due?
There is general madhhab agreement about Zakat on two mineral stores of wealth, gold and silver; three categories of livestock, camels, bovine (cows), and ovine (sheep and goats), while exempting animal products; and four kinds of crops, the grains wheat and barely, and the fruits dates and raisins.
But what if the gold or silver you own is in the form of jewelry you wear? Is that Zakatable? And what of similar kinds of grazing livestock wealth, like horses and animals that pasture freely. Are they Zakatable? And isn’t Zakat owed on lucrative animal products like honey and silk? Or how about on other grains like corn and rye, or all other varieties of produce, both fruits and vegetables – is Zakat not owed on them?
You can read an example of this kind of discussion in Is There Zakat on Jewelry? and in How Is Zakat Calculated on Wealth?
what are the set zakat thresholds (nisab) and payment rates on wealth?
Scholars generally agree on Zakat nisab-thresholds of silver and the one-fortieth rate due in Zakat from silver and gold, but they disagree about the nisab-thresholds of minerals other than silver. They dispute about Zakat rate increases that parallel an increase in quantities. They differ over the legitimacy of combining different wealth-types for purposes of calculation and payment, about the requirement of sole authority over wealth when it comes to corporate ownership, and regarding the time-period for Zakat payment on extracted minerals.
While most Muslims reading this will not encounter agricultural Zakat issues, there are similar disagreements about Zakat rates on livestock. Just for the sake of clueing you in a bit, we’ll quickly headline some of these farmer Zakat issues.
When it comes to livestock, Zakat pay-rate disputes especially emerge when the quantities rise above certain established thresholds for various kinds of animals; regarding the age of livestock for Zakat assessment and payment (which includes lack of age-specified availability for payment); and also in matters of payment when animals like sheep and goats are combined, which is legitimate, but which animal types should payment be rendered in?
When it comes to crops, the main issues of dispute are whether there are nisab-threshold measures for Zakat on crops at all (most say yes; some say pay upon harvest regardless); how to assess and extract payment from different quality grains (which they agree can be combined); or the form of Zakat payment for fruits that can be dried (most say from the preserved dried form even for the fresh wealth-quantity); or, similarly, the leftover product of produce like olives and grapes that can theoretically be pressed (for those who assess Zakat on olives). What are the quantity equivalence standards of the prophetically set measurements? Is estimation rather than actual volume measure sufficient to determine Zakatable quantity? Should a farmer be assessed Zakat for what he has consumed from his crop prior to Zakat’s actual assessment at harvest? (Abu Hanifa says yes, and Al-Shafi‘i says no.)
You can read How Is Zakat Calculated on Wealth? for some background on this.
when does zakat come due?
For currency and cattle, the verified practice of the first-generation Muslims was that a Zakat-year (hawl, which is an Islamic lunar year of about 354 days) had to pass with the wealth in the payer’s possession to make these wealth-types Zakat-eligible.
But the jurists disagreed about whether minerals whose rate is established at a fortieth needed to have a Zakat-year pass on it before payment; about profits on existing capital; increases in wealth that has already reached the nisab-threshold; loans; stored Zakatable trade goods; cattle that multiply in the course of a Zakat-year; the Zakat-timing for payment on the offspring themselves; and whether Zakat can be paid in advance of its due date.
You can read Can Zakat Payment Be Delayed or Advanced? and When Is Zakat Due? and also When is the Right Time to Give Zakat?
what are the categories of people to whom zakat can be given?
All jurists agree that Allah Himself specified the exclusive eight categories of people to whom Zakat must be paid in Surat Al-Tawbah, 9:60. But they disagreed about whether all one’s Zakat can be given to a single category or must be distributed equally to all eight; or if category 4 – those whose hearts are to be reconciled – was exclusive to the discretion of the Prophet, on him be peace, and so no longer applicable (the majority of scholars uphold this category as permanent); and about those affluent enough to not be considered poor but who can receive Zakat (like Zakat collectors, debtors, and those deemed in the path of God); and regarding the definitions and differences between the first two categories of the impoverished, the poor and the needy; and about what it means to be “in bondage”; and also about how much each eligible recipient is to be given in relation to his need or qualification for Zakat eligibility.
Read Can Zakat Be Given for Education? and What Makes a Nonprofit Organization Zakat Eligible? for related discussions on special claims of Zakat eligibility in its categories.
Do you recommend following a madhhab for Zakat payment?
The madhahib, our Muslim schools of jurisprudence, are utterly crucial and the need for their study by Muslims cannot be overstated. Yet in the Islamic obligation of Zakat, the Third Pillar upholding this entire religion and its Community, we Muslims have a long and largely neglected duty, in terms of both reviving its practice and its research. The twin absences of these needs are not coincidental. Zakat’s study and sustained presentation is an absolute prerequisite to revitalizing its fulfillment by Muslims.
Many are the Muslim scholars of this century and the preceding one that have expressed unease with the growing confusion that surrounds Zakat among common Muslims, owing to the plethora of theoretically pedantic, and sometimes contradictory, arguments and interpretations of a bulging corpus of classical opinion on issues of Zakat that sometimes seem to lose sight of Zakat’s divine objective in their determination to adhere to school doctrine and distinction.
The late Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qardawi, a true lion of Islamic law in our time, wrote about this in his preface to his monumental book seeking to address this neglect and confusion, Fiqh az-Zakat, The Law of Zakat.
“There is a great need to review these [Zakat rulings] interpretations, opinions, and arguments, to discuss them with a certain degree of neutrality, to examine them in the light of the criteria descending from Allah and to show which among them is the most worthy.”
He then cites an esteemed scholar of the generation preceding his who states:
“This obligation of Zakat, that is usually paired [in the Quran] with the obligatory daily prayer, ought to be, like the prayer, commonly understood.”
This is a profound point. Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut means Zakat’s legal differing in its every aspect and dimension ought to be considerably narrowed in light of Zakat’s objectives, which are set forth clearly in Quran and in its implementation in the Sunnah of the Prophet, on him be peace, and in the practices of the Companions to make it easy for Muslims to satisfy its obligation, like we can the Salat-Prayer.
In addition, the pace of financial developments at every level is nothing short of bewildering and upending. All these must be addressed in terms of Zakat from its principle sources and scholarship in a way that brings about comparative judgments that enable Muslims to commonly understand their Zakat obligations and fulfill them.
In these past 15 years of study and writing on Zakat issues, it seems urgently obvious that we need true scholarly engagement with the rules of Zakat to give people much clearer guidelines in all five of its dimensions so that we can easily and responsibly perform this unique worship-transaction hybrid, for which we are accountable to Allah in both His worldly and ultimate Judgment. Allah forgive us.
Indeed, in many of the disagreements cursorily outlined here, the guiding lights within the same school have disagreed with their own school’s Zakat positions in favor of another. So you are not necessarily breaking with your madhhab when you choose one ruling arrived at by competent comparative judgment over this or that school’s stated ruling.
It is best, in this view, to seek understanding of your own Zakat situation and obligations from the qualified who have studied it and come to informed judgments about the best rulings on its wide-ranging issues than it is to strictly follow someone’s uncritical interpretation of a madhhab’s Zakat rulings.
And Allah exalted alone knows best.