Zakat Does Not Belong Here

Is the best answer to the Gaza genocide fiqh councils expanding zakat eligibility?

A joint fatwa by the Association of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) and the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) has upset and confused many Muslims. Citing a Qur’ānic category of zakat recipients, mu’allafah al-qulūb (those whose hearts need to be softened), the fatwa permits the use of zakat funds for political campaigns. I will leave the fiqh counter-arguments to others (there is a link to a capable rebuttal shortly below the text of the fatwa). I have a few other points to make about the fatwa:

1. AMJA and FCNA’s fatwa is only the latest expression of socially unjust zakat practices.

AMJA’s long-held position is that zakat can be used in practically any way one wishes, with no perceptible guardrails or accountability at all. Indeed, I presented a critique of this approach at AMJA’s own annual conference in 2025. While zakat is a pillar of Islam, it does not seem so in AMJA’s telling. All Muslims would agree that if you pray to Shiva, decide that waking up for fajr is not for you, or eat lunch when you should be fasting in Ramadan, you have messed up on a pillar of Islam. But it seems there is almost no way to mess up zakat. Anything one thinks is good seems zakat eligible. We are all the heroes in our own stories. We all do good work. But is zakat so subjective?

AMJA has previously validated the zakat eligibility of a wide variety of activities: writing things, researching things, issuing opinion polls, making spreadsheets, advocacy efforts, and, well, issuing fatwas. So many random verbs and nouns are zakat eligible now that one struggles to find activities that do not qualify. Everything is related to everything else. This campaign, as I co-wrote in “This Article Could be Zakat-Eligible” transforms the economic impact of zakat into a transfer of wealth from the middle class, to the upper middle class. For example, Muslims can now pay zakat to their own organizations for their “intellectual efforts,” including promoting such efforts online.

So what exactly is new about the joint fatwa? AMJA in particular had already conceded that zakat was a restriction-free abstraction years ago; its concrete meaning has already been lost. It is portrayed as the only pillar of Islam seemingly made out of Jell-O.

To be fair, the joint fatwa attempts to impose conditions and restrain the use of zakat for political contributions. It is not as open-ended as AMJA has been (and still is). However, while the fatwa attempts to add some structure to the otherwise gelatinous substance into which zakat has been engineered, the effort falls short. The fatwa does not address why non-zakat funds are inadequate to the aim of changing public policy (though acknowledges they can be used). While the councils responsible for the fatwa explicitly warn against abuse of zakat, its fatwa is a clear invitation for abuse—that is, if by “abuse” we mean the money is going to go to rent-seeking grifters who will not benefit anyone but themselves.

It would have been better if the authors of the fatwa had addressed the economic impact of using zakat for political contributions: transferring wealth owed to the poor to consultants and media companies. But there is another issue that needs to be addressed before we even get to that.

2. Preventing genocide through political zakat is not a sound strategy.

The question the fatwa addresses is as follows:

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?

Neither the fatwa itself nor the rebuttal adequately address the basic assumption embedded in the original question. This is surprising because as best we know—given numerous studies across fields and academic disciplines—political contributions on their own have a weak effect on political behavior. If the American political system were a mere protection racket (“give me money and we will stop a hospital in Gaza from being bombed”), perhaps there would be an argument for paying the money under mu’allafah al-qulūb, as the fatwa suggests. That, however, is not our system.

The question addressed by the fatwa made me think of a well-known comment from former California Assembly Speaker of the House Jesse Unruh. To paraphrase (it is quite vulgar), he emphasizes that if you cannot ignore your donor’s demands, you have no business in elected politics. Subsequent politicians have taken pride in ignoring and even humiliating their Muslim donors.

Indeed, politicians are perfectly capable of voting against the interests of people who donated to their campaigns. The reasons politicians do what they do are multifaceted; our zakat means little to them. Politics is often downstream from the social and cultural and media landscape of the country. But there are other considerations here. Politicians contemplating if they should support genocide or align their votes with the wishes of Muslim donors may weigh pros and cons. He or she may worry about negative advertising, unflattering media coverage, future career prospects, and/or business opportunities. Self-interest can rarely be reduced to campaign contributions from one community.

Our zakat is the right of the poor. It is a sacred obligation. We need to keep it away from the grotesque and supremely unethical business of American electoral politics. (Read the actual quote from Jesse Unruh to understand what I mean.) Why must our worship enter this realm of filth? If you cannot pray on a carpet with filth on it, why on earth would you decide to give your zakat to these actors instead of the impoverished? Yes, some scholars have said we can do so, but do non-scholars have any say in protecting the sanctity of worship?

3. Non-Scholars Have a Right to an Opinion

I have not seen much defense of this joint fatwa, though some have dismissed objections to it as coming from “laypeople” and suggested that we instead defer to the credentials of the fatwa’s authors. Leaving aside who signed on to the fatwa and why, there is nothing in Islam that obligates us to suspend our critical reasoning skills. The fatwa and rebuttal are published so that we can read them. You can assess the strength or weakness of the fatwa’s arguments, and identify what the fatwa forgets to mention.

The effects of paying zakat to the poor are quite well understood to be beneficial. It has been evident for over 1400 years. In contrast, Islamic scholars engaging in speculative meditations on how to transfer this wealth to the political machinery around them have not shown that this work can solve a single problem for a single person in Gaza (or anyone outside the world of politics). Scholars need to show leadership on the matter of zakat, instead of falling prey to the schemes of politicians and their sidekicks.

Finally, one question that must be addressed is who actually wants this? In whose interests is such a fatwa? There is no gaping hole in the soul of the ummah that can be filled by giving zakat to Democratic Party consultants. Ordinary Muslims, masjid leaders, imams, and scholars who do not get invited to serve on fatwa committees should respectfully but forcefully speak to this issue. If you feel strongly about it, make your opinion known. Zakat is too important for any Muslim to be cowed into silence.