Well, 2.5% of *some* kinds of wealth
goes to the poor and other
qualified recipients, but what MGhounem says about "a relative"
could
easily be misinterpreted. It appears that there is consensus
that
zakat may not be given -- on the basis of poverty -- to whomever
one
has an obligation to support. All include in this category
parents,
children, and wife. [I don't know if they include the husband,
but
probably not, I would think since I suspect that they would say
a wife
is not obligated to support her husband.] All but the Malikis
include,
as well, grandparents and grandchildren. There is consensus that
it is
valid to give the poor-due to other deserving relatives.
If, however, a parent or child
falls into one of the other categories
of the legitimate recipients of zakat, such as the collectors of
it,
the debtors, or the traveller, etc., it becomes lawful to give
it to
them, though it remains preferable to give it to others and give
to
the needy parent or child in addition.
>It has been calculated that 3% of
the wheat in the world would feed all the
>starving people.
Perhaps; it would not surprise
me. But the problem is not the amount
of wheat, there is plenty of wheat, but is one of
*distribution.* To
move a kilo of wheat from a farm in Kansas to a poor person in,
say,
Bangladesh would certainly cost much more than the wheat itself.
If
the wheat is collected and moved in large quantities, that cost
would
be greatly lowered, I am not sure by how much, but it would
still be
very significant.
>This system of the Believer to
hand the 3% directly to the poor is the
>solution.
>In giving the 3% to the poor,
you avoid corruption, fore as we know, money can
>corrupt.
The brother's argument has this
much to say for it: he is right about
corruption. But there are two problems with his proposal, even
though
I personally would prefer it, were it not for these problems.
The lesser of these problems *in
our time* is that it seems that
certain tribes may have had an idea similar to that of the
brother,
and Abu Bakr fought those, considering them apostate. So if
there is a
khalif, it becomes obligatory to pay the zakat to the khalif.
There is no obligatory khalif in
our time, that is, no single person
to whom all the Muslims are obligated to give their allegiance,
but it
is my opinion that if one *does* give allegiance to a person in
a way
analogous to the allegiance to a khalif, the giving of zakat for
distribution as ordered by that person becomes obligatory.
And some would argue that the
giving of such allegiance is also
obligatory, if any suitable recipient is available. This is a
difficult problem, though, and I am not pretending to have clear
answers, only a few poorly-organized thoughts, which time will
not
allow me to fully present, maa shaa'a llah.
But before I turn to my *own*
obligations, only a few of which are
satified by what I write in this newsgroup, I will explain what
I see
as the second problem.
It will not reach the poor in
remote areas, for the most part, unless
the giver of zakat has sufficient resources not only to identify
these
people but to transport aid to them. For these poor, the
collection of
zakat by organizations is a practical necessity. Obviously, one
should
take care in choosing organizations, but if one has done that,
any
loss of the zakat becomes the full responsibility of those who
misappropriate it; and Allah will provide for the poor even if
thieves
make off with all the zakat; whatever difficulties they face in
this
world, if they are among those who trust in Allah and his
justice,
will be more than fully balanced by the reward they receive in
the
next; and the thieves will find that they sold an affair of
great
value for a few grains of wheat.
I suspect that it was for this
reason that the Prophet, SAS,
reportedly, did not question those who asked for zakat or ask
for
proof of their poverty, saying to them "If you like I will give
it to
you, for there is no share in it for one who is well provided or
one
who makes an earning."
AbdulraHman Lomax
index |
Back
