Zakt in Imm Sh' Jurisprudence, from the Tenth to the Sixteenth Century A.D.

Author(s): Norman Calder Reviewed work(s): Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 44, No. 3 (1981), pp. 468-480 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/616609 . Accessed: 24/01/2012 14:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

http://www.jstor.org

ZAKAT IN IMAMI SHI'I JURISPRUDENCE, FROM THE TENTH TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY A.D. By NORMANCALDER
Mawardi said of zakdt that it was paid tahratan li-ahliha ma'iinatan li-ahl al-sahman, as a purification for the donor and a support for the recipient.1 It has thus a dual aspect. As a social tax it provides for the transfer of wealth from certain productive classes of society to certain poor or non-productive classes. As a religious duty it is of essentially the same type as salat, hajj**, etc., a farida 'ala 1-'ayn. Like these it is a ritual whose correct performanceinvolves an attention to precise details of quantity (nasab), timing (al-hawl), and intention (niyya) which may be irrelevant or even inimical to the optimum fulfilment of the social aim. The zakit donors were defined as those possessed of productive wealth derived from pastoralism, agriculture or trade.2 The recipients were divided into eight categories, five of which may be subsumed under the headings of the poor, the needy or those under particular difficulties; the other three were the tax-collecting and military classes (al-'dmiiin, f" sabil alldh, al-mu'allafa). Sunni jurists in general acknowledged that defacto rulers had a certain right to collect and distribute the zakat, 'because they (the wuldt) are the trustees (umand')over the collection of zakdtfrom the donors on behalf of the recipients '.3 Shafi'I (d. 204/820), however, perceived that the political rights of the wulat might conflict with the individual need for religious reward. For the latter it was necessary that the zakdt be paid at a particular time (al-hawl): Shdfi'I indicated that if the tax-collector did not arrive at the appropriate moment t the donor should distribute the zakT himself.4 Likewise with regard to niyya Shdfi'i considered it preferable (wa-ahabbuilayya) that the individual should undertake his own distribution in order to be sure about the discharge of his religious duty (fa-yakiin 'ald yaqin min add'ihd).5 There was thus some tension between the political rights of the ruler and the religious needs of the individual donor. The ruler was entitled to use one part of the zakat collected--that of the 'amilfin-to finance his tax-collecting bureaucracy: wa-yu'td a'wan idarat wali it 1-sadaqa, may be given to the aides in the administration of the wal! 1-sadaqa.6 There was, however, for Shdfi'i a possibility, when the donor distributed the zaklt directly, that the share of the 'amil might be saqit (lapsed).7 Nevertheless, on the whole, for Shafi'i as for later Sunni jurists the system of religious taxation implied the existence of a government who collected and distributed. Of what was collected the government might legitimately use three out of eight parts for bureaucratic and military purposes. Shdfi'i acknowledged, even stressed, that the individual need for salvation could pre-empt the right of the ruler to collect and distribute; and he was familiar with the possibility and the terminology of suqlat. In his works juristic rules are set out as ideals with
1 MEwardi, Al-Ablakm ed. Enger, Bonn, 1853, 195; cf. also N. P. Aghnides, al-Sul.tniyya, Mohammedantheories of finance, New York, 1916, p. 323, n. 1. 2 See, for further details, mostly common to Sunnis and Shi'is, Aghnides, op. cit., 203-95. 3 Muhammad ibn Idris al-ShEfi'i, Kitib al- Umm, Cairo, 1388, I, 70. * ibid., 15. 5 ibid., 19.
6

7 ibid., 68; cf. Abfi Yiisuf, Kiteb al-Kharaj, Cairo, 1352, 81.

ibid., 61.

ZAKAT IN IMAMI SHi'i JURISPRUDENCE

469

little referenceto the actual practice of the administration; later Sunni writers, it will be shown, manifested a rather different concern to provide the greatest degree of legitimacy for the actual practice of defacto powers. Works of Imimi fiqh emerged only in the second half of the tenth century A.D. and first achieved a high degree of technical excellence in the writings of Muh1ammad Hasan al-Tfisi: 8 first, concisely, in his Kitab al-Nihdya and ibn later, expansively, in his Kitab al-Mabsfit. Defining the Imami attitude to zakat he declared that in the absence of the imdm or his appointee (man nasabahu 1-imim) the shares of the su'dt/'amilfin, the mu'allafa and jihid were sdqit.9 The term man nasabahu 1-imdmrefers presumably to a contemporary of the imdm, certainly in this context to an entity deemed absent. During the Ghayba, then, the Imamis emphasized the dissociation of the sacred from the profane by denying precisely those shares which would have served the administrative and military needs of the government. They were enabled thereby to affirm their independence of the political institution and to stress the religious rather than the political aspects of zakit. Later, in his Tilsi confirmed that the shares of the mu'allafa and the 'amil were saqit, but, Mabst., by providing an extended definition of sabil allah, he was enabled to affirm its contemporary operancy.10 Sabil allah was there defined as including the building of mosques, the upkeep of bridges and other masalih."l The scholarly class thus had a claim on zakdt only insofar as religious buildings were concerned. Ja'far ibn Sa'id al-Muhaqqiq al-HIilliconfirmed that the shares of the 'dmil and the mu'allafa were saqit, accepted the extended definition of sabil allah and added to it the consideration that jihad might be possible even in the absence of the imam.1 I2 asan ibn Yiisuf ibn al-Mutahhar al-'Alldma, a generation later, not only accepted the possibility but inferred from it that the share of the mu'allafa, too, could not continue : J. d J~JI l Thesaqit.: of the 'dmil, however, share i j9il Jl .rP j Uit,,1.13 . .l e~r. would appear to have been left-.ji Tilsi had defined it: 'the share of the as 3-.the sd'? and the ghazi are saqit during the Ghayba-except when mnu'allafa, there is need of jihed '.14 It is difficult to see how the exceptive phrase can have
, The major ImAmi fuqahi' in the period under discussion, and those of their works which constitute the main sources for the present study are: M. ibn al-Tfisi (d. 460/1067): Kitab al-Nihdya, Beirut, 1970, Kitab al-Mabs?it, Persia, 1271, n.p. (references to Tilsi, H.asan zaklt, 7 indicate the seventh page of the section on zaklt); M. ibn Ahmad ibn Idris al-Hilli Mabsi.t, (d. 598/1202): Kitab Sard'ir al-Isl8m, Persia, 1270/1854, n.p. (references given to British Museum edition where the incipit is p. 2); Ja'far ibn Hasan al-Muhaqqiq (d. 676/1277) : Shard'i' al-Islim, 4 vols., Najaf, 1389/1969, Al-Mukhtasar al-Ndfi', Cairo, 1376 (Qum reprint); al-.Hilli Hasan ibn Yiisuf ibn al-Mutahhar al-Hilli (d. 726/1325): Kitab Mukhtalif al-Shi'a, 4 vols. in 1, Persia, 1324/1906, Kitab Qawd'id al-Ahkiim, in Karaki, Jami' al-Maqdsid (see below), Kitab Tabrir al-Ahkdm, 2 vols., Persia, 1314/1896; Shams al-Din ibn Makki al-Shahid al-Awwal (d. 786/1384-5): Al-Lum'at al-Dimashqiyya, in Shahid II, Rawda (see below); 'Ali ibn Husayn ibn 'Abd al-'Ali al-Karaki (d. 937/1530-1 or 940/1533-4): Kitab Jami' al-Maqdsid ft sharb al-Qawd'id, 2 vols., Tehran, 1395; Zayn al-Din ibn 'Ali al-Shahid al-Thani (d. 960/1559): Masalik al-if/hdmfi sharharard'i' al-Islm, 2 vols., Persia, 1310 and 1314, Al-Rawdat al-Bahiyya ft sharb al-Lum'at al-Dimashqiyya, Tabriz, 1271. 9 Tilsi, Nihdya, 185. For further discussion of the term 8sqit in this kind of context, see al-Sharif Al-Shdfi, Tehran, 1301/1884, 40-41, and Tiisi, Kitab al-Ghayba, Najaf, 1385, 64; al-Murtad., of the term s8qit in this kind of context would seem to have been first acceptance justified by Tilsi. zakt, 17-18. 1' Tfisi, Mabsz.ft, 1"An indication that Sunni juristic works were part of the juristic pool drawn upon by Shi'i jurists: cf. Abil Yfisuf, op. cit., 81. 12Muhaqqiq, Shard'i', I, 162. (Tilsi also acknowledged the validity of defensive jihid, but this did not affect his discussion of zakAit.) 1' 'Allma, Tabrir, 68. 14idem, Qawd'id, 22.

470

NORMAN CALDER

any relevance to the sd'&; that share remains sdqit. There is none the less an element of ambiguity about the phraseology which may have been deliberate. The ambiguity was emphasized, perhaps exploited, by Shams al-DIn ibn " . ~ Makki, al-Shahid al-Awwal: ~I ::iL during the I, L.;"l "_ one/those needed.15 That removed no sd'i and no mu'allafa except for i~,jh Ghayba, the specificity of the need (jihad) and left it an open question whether there might not be a need for the sd'i during the Ghayba. Zayn al-Din ibn 'Ali al-Shahid al-Thani was quite explicit. Commenting on the exceptive clause, ilEl li-man yuhtaj ilayhi, he states: That is the faqih if he is able to appoint a sd'i to collect zakdt; and if jihdd is necessary during the Ghayba and ta'lif is required that is permissible by means of the faqih or someone else (bi 1-faqihwa-ghayrihi).16 By the sixteenth century the three zakdt-recipient categories which by TilsI had initially been declared sdqit had been re-established as operative. That change took place exegetically and without polemic. There was no overt appeal, as justification for development, to revelation or to ijmd'; there was rather a gradual reassessment of the meaning of revelation, or of the dicta of earlier jurists. Adduction of the concept of as justificatory reflects a diffuse and general habit of juristic appeal to related concepts, e.g. darifra.7 h.ja The final Imami assessment of the eight categories paralleled the Sunni assessment except in this that whereas for the Sunnis the major executive agent (for organization of collection and for jihid) was the wdlTor governor, for the Shi'is it was the faqih. Legal developments in this field benefited the fuqah&'in at least one other way. Although there had been amongst Imami jurists various views as to who was included in the categories of the fuqard' and the masdkin the opinion prevailed that these terms meant a person whose income was insufficient to cover annual expenses for himself and his family. Shahid II added to this the consideration that if someone was incapable of earning a living because of his endeavours in religious knowledge ('ilm din7) he might receive zakdt, even if he could, by leaving his studies, earn a sufficiency. In the discussion of zakdt al-fitra he added that special attention was to be given to people of preeminence in 'ilm and zuhd: preferencewas to be given them over other degrees. The fuqahd' thus not only finally controlled the collection and distribution of zakit but were also major recipients.18 Developments in legal theory reflect change in the aspirations of the religious class. Those in turn were affected by historical events and by ideological (juristic) conditioning. The early Imami image of the sacred umma, as presented in the Nihdya, is relatively free from concepts of military or bureaucratic organization. Shahid II, on the other hand, perceived the community as ideally possessed of a tax-collecting bureaucracy and a military force, both under the control of the fuqaha'. It is certain that in Buyid times the fuqah&'already considered themselves as judicial authorities, and no doubt were able within the Imdmi community to control some part of zakit payments.19 In the following centuries, especially
15Shahid I, in Rawda, 51. 16 Shahid II, Rawda, 51. 17 See Calder, 'Judicial authority in Imimi Shi'I jurisprudence ', British Society for Middle Eastern Studies Bulletin, vI, 1979, 107. 18 Shahid II, Rawda, 49, 51. 19 Tehran, cf. Calder, art. cit.; 'Abd al-Jalil al-Qazwini, Kitlib al-Naqd, ed. Muh.addith, 1331/1952, 164.

ZAKATIN IMAMISHI'i JURISPRUDENCE

471

under tolerant and favourably inclined governments (the caliph al-Nasir, Ilkhanids, Safavids) it is probable that they consolidated their hold on their followers and increased their control of material wealth. That was reflected in the increasing stress in legal works on their general authority. By the early sixteenth century when Tahmasp promoted the creation of a formally Shi'i state, their aspirations and perceptions had been sharpened to a point where they presented themselves as the rightful authorities within such a state. The juristic theory of the Safavid period differed significantly from the early Buyid expression in so far as it offered a determinate body which ought ideally to control or replace the actual government, in order to implement the shari'a. The early doctrine of suqiit had probably developed as a means to avoid overt expression of political opposition. According to Shafi'i, God had imposed on all Muslims a charge on their wealth on behalf of other Muslims.20 Zakat in general was not to be paid to non-Muslims.21 Just as performance of saldt was an outward symbol of adherence to the Islamic community, so was payment of or acceptance of zakdt. Participation in that ritual displayed membership of the community. The Imamis were concerned not with isldm as the relevant category but with 7min ; that was specified by all writers as a necessary condition in the recipient of zakat al-mdl. Tisi suggested that in the absence of Imami recipients zakat al-fitra might be distributed to mustad'ifin in general. Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Idris objected to this view and Muhaqqiq after initial hesitation confirmed Ibn Idris's opinion. Thereafter no Imami faqikhappears to have denied that zakdtal-mdl and zakdtal-fitra were to be paid within ddr al-7mdn.22Any Imdmi who knowingly paid zakat wrongly-that is to a non-Imami-failed to gain reward. Zaklt was a community-defining ritual.23 'Addla was a quality which might be required in the recipient of zakat. It was a quality involving manifestation of positive virtues and was the opposite offisq, a quality acquired by the commission of one or more kabd'ir,or persistent commission of saghi'ir. To stipulate in the recipient of zaklt the quality 'addla suggests that the community within which that ritual was carried out was perceived as a positively virtuous community in which every individual assiduously obeyed the law. To stipulate absence of fisq permitted a broader definition of community, including those who were, if not conspicuously 'ddil, yet not fdsiq. The matter became controversial at about the time of 'Allama. He stated in the Tahrir al-Ahkdm: Tfisi and al-Sharif al-Murtada have specified 'addla but others have rejected this opinion; the latter view is stronger. The others have specified avoidance of kaba'ir. In our opinion it is permissible to give to a fdsiq as long as he is mu'min.24 The identification of the 'others' was provided in the Mukhtalif al-Shi'a. In that work 'Allma cited Tifsi and several of his contemporaries as specifying
20Shfi'I, Umm, I, 70. For both Sunnis and Shi'is there was much discussion about whether the mu'allafa might or might not be non-Muslim. See e.g. Shifi'i, Umm, 61 and 72-3: the different opinions there expressed indicate the composite nature of the Umm; see also Tfisi, Mabsiit, zakat, 17; note that Shifi'i is cited as source of this discussion; his opinion thereafter became part of Imimi ikhtildf ; cf. note 11 above. 22 For this term see A. K. S. Lambton, 'A nineteenth century view of jihad ', SI, xxxII, 1970, 182. 23 See Tiisi, Nihdya, 185, 192; Mabsi4t, zakat, 16; Ibn Idris, Sard'ir, 106, 109; Muhaqqiq, 59. 24 .Muckhtasar, Tabrfr, 69. 'Allima, VOL. XLIV. PART 3. 33
21

472

CALDER NORMAN

some variant of the root ' d 1. Al-Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 413/1022) and al-Sharif al-Murtacda(d. 436/1044) both demanded positive virtues: siy na, nazdha, taqi, 'afif. According to 'Allama, Ibn Idris did not specify 'addla. But that was misreading or misrepresentation for Ibn Idris had in fact demanded 'addla aw hukmuhu. The only writers that 'Alldma finally adduced in favour of his opinion were 'Ali ibn Bhbiiya and his son al-Sadiiq, of the generation prior to T-isi. Even there the evidence was negative: they did not specify 'addla, but nor did they specify the absence of this quality: it was not for them an issue. In the face of an immense weight of tradition 'Allama chose to deny that 'adila was a condition required in the recipient of zakdt. Avoidance of kabd'ir was necessary but not absence of fisq.25 The point was obviously thought important, and the law was obviously uncertain and susceptible to modification. That modification was achieved again not by appeal to revelation or ijmd', rather by asserting (unconvincingly ?) the absence of ij3m' and by appeal to the dicta of earlier jurists. 'Allma for reasons which are not immediately apparent wished to deny that 'addla was a condition for receiving zakat. To that end he searched the sources for justification. It is manifest that his opinion was not forced upon him by the overwhelming evidence of acceptable usjil. Shahid II also treated the question of 'addla as a contentious issue. In the Masalik al-Ifhdm he put forward a novel argument. All the Imimi fuqahdi' accepted that children of mu'minin may be given zakdt to the exclusion of children of kuffdr. Shahid II noted that children may not possess the qualities of either 'adl or fisq. If they do not possess 'adl they should not receive zak~t. But everyone agrees they should receive zakat. Therefore 'adl cannot be a condition.26 The logic is fair enough but the reader is not convinced that he was led to his opinion by the logic, rather his opinion required justification. Shahid II's commentary on the Lum'a (of Shahid I) apropos of 'addla may be given in abbreviated form as illustrative of a manner of juridical argument. [Shahid I said] 'addla is to be considered in other than the mu'allafa ... and it is said (qila) that that which is to be considered is only avoidance of kaba'ir. [Shahid II added]: as to the mu'allafa it is because their kufr prevents 'addla . .. Considerationof 'addlain the 'amil is generally agreed (mawdi'al-wifdq). As to the consideration of 'addlain the others, that is only one of various views, though Murtadd claimed ijma' ... Some stipulate [only] avoidance of kab&'ireven if the saghi'ir lead to the designation fisq. That is because of the text (nass) which denies [zakat] to a wine-drinker ...; it does not indicate a general denial tofdsiqs. Other kabh'ir have been added [to wine-drinking] by a process of muswart (' equalization '). That, however, is a matter for consideration since musawatis denied and qiyds rejected by the Imdmis ... If 'addla were to be considered children would be denied zakat ...27 Shahid II like 'Allma wanted only kaba'ir to be taken into consideration as denying the right to zackat.He argued that ijm&',though it had been claimed, had never existed on this issue; he questioned the interpretation of a revealed text by earlierfuqahM'; and he worried about children who might have to be
25

26 Shahid II, Masalik, I, 61. 27 idem, Rawda, 50. Denial of

idem, Mukhtalif, i, , 11; cf. Ibn Idris, Sard'ir, 106. qiyds was a well-established slogan of Im5mi jurisprudence.

ZAKAT IN IMAMI SHI'I JURISPRUDENCE

473

denied zakaIt.Commendablecare for the welfare of children and for the precise meaning and exegesis of the sources may have been the only factors which led him to his conclusion; the argument, however, may also and perhaps better be understood as post facto justification of an opinion which emerged for other reasons. While the precise motivation behind 'Allama's and Shahid II's argumentation cannot be discerned it may none the less be remarked that removal of 'addla as a condition broadened the scope of patronage of those who distributed zakat-the fuqahk'. Further, again, from Tilsi to Shahid II there was a change in the underlying vision of the community. Tfisi's writings implied a community of believers (mu'minin), whose actions were in accord with their faith ('adala), a community without a formal bureaucratic or military class. Shahid II's believers were acknowledged as participants in the community even if their actions did not reach the high standards of 'addla. He stressed the general authority of the fuqahd' over the bureaucratic and military classes. This view confirms the illegitimate non-shar'i nature of Safavid rule, while proposing that most of the people within the Safavid state-insofar as they were Shi'is-might be brought within the ambit of practical shar'i politics; or at least, in this context, they would be subject to those elements of clerical control and patronage implied in the theory of zak~at.The fuqah&'might hope within the community to exercise at least a part of the authority they conceived themselves to possess, and to make this a basis for consolidation and expansion of their practical control of affairs. For both Sunnis and Shi'is niyya (intention) 28is an essential element in the attainment of religious reward (jaza'/1ijz'). 'Alldma stated that if a man gave away all his wealth and forgot niyya he gained no ijza'.29 Shafi'i explained that since sadaqa might be either incumbent (fard) or voluntary (tatawwu')it is not permissible that a man gain ijz*' for distributing zakdt (the far4d)except he express niyya to the effect that it is such.30 Niyya thus for him distinguished the formal ritual of zakat from superorogatory alms-giving. There was at least one modification to the requirement of niyya, namely that if the walT(governor) took zakat from a person without his consent that person still gained ijzd'. Shdfi'Iwas led from there to conclude: If the walt takes from a man his zakdt, whether the man at that point does or does not express niyya, whether the man is willing or otherwise, whether the wltl expresses niyya or not, it provides ij2z' for the donor; just as ijzd' is procured in the matter of distribution of zakat whether the one who distributes it is his (the donor's) wali (= agent) or the sultan. Shdfi', however, does not in hisfurfi' provide for an unjust sultan; the implication is that the zakdt will reach its legitimate recipients. He added that it was preferable that the individual should undertake his own distribution so as to be sure about the correct discharge of the duty of zaklt.31 Mdwardi stated that payment of zakat (on goods) 32 to the walTmight a matter of be either wjib or mustahabb; it was ikhtilaf.33 z.hir That was rather
28See for niyya Schacht, Introduction to Islamic law, Oxford, 1964, 116-18. 29 'Allma, Tahrir, 67.
30 Shlfi'i, 31 ibid.,

19. 32 For the distinction between zghir and bdtin goods, see Aghnides, op. cit., 296-7. 33M1wardi, op. cit., 195.

Umm, I, 18-19.

474

NORMAN CALDER

different from Shafi'I who had not expressed the problem in these terms and who had considered it preferable in any case for an individual to distribute zakat himself. Mawardi acknowledged that if the ultimate distribution was unjust (not in accord with the law) the individual should not in fact pay his to zaldat the 'dmil but should hide it, or, if it was taken willy nilly, should repeat the zakaitin order to gain reward.34 Nawawi (d. 676/1277-8) in the Minhdj admitted that, while an individual might distribute zakdt himself or al-PT.libin wakil, it was better for him to give the zakdtto the imram defacto through his (i.e. ruler) unless he was ja'ir.35 The commentary on this by Shirbini (d. 977/ 1569-70) though complex, is illuminating on the tendency of Sunni legal theory to acknowledge the authority even of tyrants (ja'irin). goods [may be distributed by individuals] according to the new view, [which is derived] by qiyds from [the situation of] batin goods [which Z.4hir may at all times be distributed by individuals]; the old view is that it is incumbent to deliver [zakaton zahir goods] to the imam or his n5'ib because of... (Q 9.103) ... The apparent view [arising from the qur'anic verse] is that it is incumbent. This [is the case even] if he (the imam) does not demand it. If he does demand it, it is incumbent to surrenderit to him even if he is ja'ir, as a display of obedience ... The ja'ir imam is joined to the others in this rule because of the prevailing of his authority and because of his not being dismissed for jawr. For, if they refused to surrenderit to him he would fight them, even if they claimed that they would deliver it to the recipients themselves, because of their refusal to display obedience.36 Here it is unambiguously stated that it is incumbent to pay zakaitto the ruler even if the ruler is ja'ir. His jawr would imply that the zakit thus paid might not reach its shar'i recipients, it remained valid zakat. On niyya ShirbinI acknowledged that it was required, for ijzd', at the moment of payment to the sultan. However, there was a variant view: The donor [who pays the sultan without expressing niyya] gains ijzd' because custom indicates that what the sultan takes and distributes to the recipients is nothing other than incumbent zakat. This custom removes from this religious duty the requirement of niyya.37 Here Shafi'i's original argument for the necessity of niyya-to distinguish between the fard and the nafila-is turned back to front. Since Shirbini deems it incumbent to pay the zakit (fard) to the sultan (even if he is ja'ir) that and it no longer payment becomes itself the sign of its being the zakat (farVd) has to be distinguished by niyya. The various views here distinguished within Shafi'ifiqh may not represent a strictly chronological development: they may have existed side by side for some time in the works of other writers and other schools. They represent, however, a spectrum of possibilities wherein at one extreme the right and duty of the individual to gain reward for himself by paying zakat is stressed while at the other extreme this right is removed and transferred to the ruler. In the view of Shirbini the mere collection of taxes by a tyrant ruler (who might not assess them correctly or distribute them justly), constituted zakat. Neither the
3' ibid., 209. 35 In M. ibn al-Khatib al-Shirbini, Mughni al-Muhtiij f t sharh al-Minhdj, 4 vols., Cairo, 1308, I, 402. 36 ibid.
37

ibid., 403.

ZAKATIN IMAMI SHI'I JURISPRUDENCE

475

donor nor the sultan was required to undertake niyya. Yet the donor gained ijzJ'. This was nothing more than a bald assertion that religious reward was gained by mere submission to the de facto power of the actual ruler. His deviation from the ideal (jawr) did not preclude the fact that what was put into effect was a sufficient approximation to the shari'a for the members of the political community to gain religious reward. The effect was certainly to render sacred (shar'i) the ordinary acts of the people (who paid) but it also rendered sacred the political acts of the ruler (who exacted). The whole was an expression of the support of the religious classes for the defacto power and may be thought to symbolize a general Sunni tendency to acknowledge or promote the legitimate (shar'i) rule of the actual governors.38 For the Imamis, while the im4m is present zakdtshould be paid to him or his su'it or might possibly be distributed by the donor himself. According to Tfisi when the su'dt do not come or at a time when there is no im4m (the Ghayba) it is incumbent on the donor to undertake the distribution of zaket by himself. 4 ,1 WJI b He should not pay zakdt to the sultin al-jawr: "Jc4, J~j , This was .. &" Cl A. ,t L--.eU _i_, ,. JL.. L_-.? .. qualified, however, by the acknowledgement that., the donor might distribute his own wakil. If the individual undertook distribution without the through intermediation of the imdm or the sd'i--as must be the case during the Ghaybait was thought better not to appoint a wakil because the individual could be sure of his own actions but only doubtful about the actions of others. On the other hand, it was permissible to deliver zakat to a trustworthy member of the Shi'i because fraternity and in fact it was better (afdal) to hand it over to the 'ulamA' they were more knowledgeable about the ' places' of zakdt (i.e. the appropriate recipients)."9 There is some confusion here as it is thought 'better' not to appoint a wakil ; and yet ' better ' to pay through the ' ulama. Since the imadm was absent and the sd'i not relevant to the Ghayba, the role of the 'ulam&' can best be explained (?) as trustworthy wakil to the donor. In spite of this there is for the Buyid period some evidence that the faqih was already seen as to some extent replacing the imnm. According to : Murtad. It is better to disburse zakat ... to the imdm or his khulafa' representing him; and if that is impossible it is related that it should be disbursed to trustworthy fuqahd'.40 And for Mufid: God has made it a duty for the umma to carry zakdtto the prophet or the imdm, his khalifa, ... ; if the khalifa is absent the duty is to carry it to one of the khalifa's associates appointed by him; and if the sufard' between him and his people are not available it is incumbent to carry it to the trustworthy fuqaha'.41 The incumbency there suggested by Mufid was not afterwards accepted. None the less it was obviously considered preferable in Buyid times that zaklt should be transferred to its recipients via the fuqaha'. It is apparent from the remarks of MurtadI and Mufid that in some undefined way they took over in this field
of. Calder, art. cit., and sources cited ad notes 8 and 9. See for all this, PTisi, Nihdya, 185; zakt, 13 (ad niyya), 16, 20. 40Al-Sharif Jumal al-'ilm wa'l-'amal, with commentary by Ibn al-Barraj, Mabai.t, 269. Mashad, 1974, al-Murtad., 41Cit. in 'Allma, Mulchtalif, II, 16. (This text is only available to me in this rather late compendium.)
38

39

476

CALDER NORMAN

the role of the imtim or his representatives. They were not themselves, however, referred to as representatives of the imam but rather as a kind of residual authority which became effective precisely in the absence of representatives. Tfisi's detailed furfi' provided for distribution either through the imdm or his sa'! (both absent or sdqit) or the wakil of the donor. Presumably the faqih acted as wakil to the donor. Muhaqqiq, too, specified only three possible distributors: the imnm, the 'dmil and the donor. In the absence of the imam, zakat was to be paid to a reliable Imcmi faqiih for he was more cognisant of its 'places '.42 Since the faq;h was neither imdm nor sa'i (that category was sdqitaccording to Muhaqqiq) he must again have acted as wakil to the donor.43 The faqfh, however, even if his role was formally identifiable only as wakil to the donor, performed the same functions as the sd'i who was direct appointee of the imt m. The impingement of some confusion on Muhaqqiq's thought may be illustrated by a comparison of a particular remark in the Shard'i' al-Islam and its parallel in the (later) Mukhtasar. % L L.:4 ;TJ1 4LU jljI rL.Y d 1?1 L?JJI (Shard'i'): .' zU l I'1 z4,' %h -sl U%i ,_Us (Mukhtasar)": .Jt 'If the imam or the sd'i/faqih takes t.] zakdt the donor's duty is fulfilled the even if the goods subsequently perish.' 44 Muhaqqiq was beginning to see the faqih as taking on the function of the sa'T, direct representative of the imim. 'Alldma reaffirmedin his Qawd'idal-Ahkdm the traditional view. The zakat might be paid to the imZm (absent), the 'dmil (still sdqit ?), the poor (the recipient), or a wakil. During the Ghayba it should (yustahabb)be paid to a acted as wakil (to the donor). In the faqth.45 Presumably again the faq~Th 'Allama complicated the issue by specifying not four but five Tahrir, however, modes of distribution. It might be passed either directly to the recipient, or to the sd'7, or the wali (= imnm), or the wakil, or, and this is new, the hdkim.46 was a faqtih acting as direct It is known that during the Ghayba the of the absent imZm.4 Earlier assessment had not distinguished the appointee ha.kim role of the faqth in distributing zakat from the role of a wakil to the donor. 'Allama's list at least suggests that thefaqThacted by right of his representation of the absent imim. The period was obviously one of transition. Both Muhaqqiq and 'Allama considered that zakat should be paid to the fuqahd'. There was some doubt as to in what capacity the latter undertook to receive and distribute the zakit. According to Shahid I: (a) It is incumbent to pay zakat to the imam on demand whether by himself or through his sd'T. (b) It is said, likewise to the faqTh. (c) Payment to those (all of them ?) voluntarily is preferable. (d) It is said, incumbent.48 That represents considerable change. Rule (a) was traditional. Rule (b) was a
42 Mubaqqiq,

Shard'i', I, 164-5. 4 ibid., and Shard'i', I, 165. 46 idem, Tabrir, 67. 48 Shahid I, in Rawda, 50.

43 cf. idem, Mukhtasar, 60. 45 'Allima, Qawd'id, 23. 47 cf. Calder, art. cit.

ZAKATIN IMAMI SHi'i JURISPRUDENCE

477

direct transferral to the faqThof authority which traditionally belonged to the imam or his sd'i. The faqgh had a right to demand zakdtand it was incumbent to pay him. The justification of that view was obscured in the anonymous q1/a. Rule (c) was again not novel: it had always been thought preferable to distribute zakat through a faqih. Rule (d) suggested it might be incumbent; again, the anonymous qila. Shahid I thus produced a ruling whereby zakdt could be a compulsory tax, administered not by the government but by the fuqah&'. Mufid, it is true, some three and a half centuries previously, had already stated something rather like this but that statement had proved premature: it had not found general acceptance. Centuries of legal effort and a gradual refinement of the concept of clerical authority had provided a context, a structure and a justification which made Shahid I's assessment seem both appropriate and convincing. Shahid II witnessed from his base in Ottoman Syria the establishment of Shi'ism as the official religion of Safavid Persia. That did not represent the official implementation of the sharE'abut it offered opportunities and inspired a comprehensive analysis of the nature and extent of the faqih's authority. Shahid II's commentary on Muhaqqiq's Shard'i', with regard to zakdt, may be described as an incorporation of the faq' h into all those rules which for Muhaqqiq had been relevant only to the imnm or the sd'7. The clarity and integrity of his view, however, is best appreciated in Al-Rawdat al-Bahiyya. It is necessary to pay zakat to the imdimif he demands it in person or through his s&'i, because of the necessity of obedience. It is said it is necessary to pay it to the faqih shar'i during the Ghayba if he demands it because he is nd'ib to the inmm like whether in person or through his wakTl, the sr'i, indeed stronger (li-annahu nd'ib al-imam ka 1-sd'ibal aqwd). If the donor refuses (khalafa) and distributes the zakat himself he gains no ijzd' because of the refusal (to pay the faqih) which corrupts his act of worship (li'l-nahy al-mufsida (sic) li'l-'ibdda). To pay it to them voluntarily without demand is better because they are more knowledgeable of its 'places' ... It is said ... it is incumbent to pay, without demand, the imhm or his nd'ib or, during the Ghayba, the faqih ...; as proved by ... (Q 9.103) ..., for, rendering it compulsory for him (the imim) to collect requires that it be compulsory for them (the donors) to pay, and the ni'ib is like the munawwib. The more prevalent view (al-ashhar)is istihbab.49 The more prevalent view is not necessarily Shahid II's. This passage asserts categorically that the faqph may demand zakat and if he demands it, it is incumbent to pay him. He may demand it in person or through his wakil. So it is envisaged that the faqThmay send out tax-collecting deputies to collect zakdt. It might be incumbent to pay zakdtto afaqih even if he does not actually demand it. Shahid II justifies this view with a qur'anic quotation and with the assertion that the nd'ib is like the munawwib. That is, the faqih (nd'ib) is like the imdm (munawwib)and possesses accordingly all of his rights. The two propositions rendered available in that passage, that the faqik is nd'ib to the imdm and that the nd'ib is like the munawwib constitute the foundation of Shahid II's vision of the execution of the shari'a. The seeds of that vision were not absent in Buyid times but it took almost six centuries for the full implications of the imdm's absence to become clear. The BuyidfuqahM'perceiving that their interests were bound up with the preservation of the shari'a as ideal, free from
4 Shahid II, Rawda, 50.

478

NORMAN CALDER

involvement with the defacto power, had declared several aspects of the shari'a sdqit..50By the time of Shahid II it had been perceived that most of the siqit functions should in fact be under the control of the faqih. That development probably reflects a real consolidation of authority under tolerant governments and was fostered by the elusive possibility of actually forming a ' state' subject to shar'i rules and governed by the clerical class. It will be noted that as the faqikhasserted his right to administer zakat the individual lost his right to distribute it himself. It was gradually perceived that the authority delegated by Ja'far to the fuqah&'covered not only al-S.diq strictly judicial activities but also control of zakit. This was only part of a gradual process whereby most of the sdqit functions of the imdm were brought into the sphere of qada'. That process, while enhancing the authority of the clerical classes, restricted the degree of participation of the non-clerical individual in his own salvation. Some indications in early texts (Tilsi, Ibn Idris) that the individual might be personally responsible for the fulfilment of the religious duty of zakdt were overlaid and finally removed by the imperatives of clerical control. A similar process was evident in Sunni sources.51 There, the right to collect and distribute granted to the accepted shar'i executive, the de facto ruler, pre-empted the right of the individual to assess and distribute for himself. For the Shi'is the accepted shar'i executive was manifestly not the de facto ruler but the faqth. The developments in Sunni theory, it has been shown, were accompanied by a removal of the need for niyya on the part of the donor. A parallel process may be discerned in Imdmi Shi'I jurisprudence. According to Tfisi, zakat might be paid either through the wakil of the donor or through the imdm/sd'i. In the former case both the donor and the wakl1 were required to express niyya: if either of the two neglected it there was no ijza'. In the latter case, a merely theoretical possibility, the donor had to express niyya, but not, necessarily, the imam. If, however, the imam took zakdt by force, then the unwilling donor gained ijzi'.52 Niyya then during the Ghayba-when the imdm cannot take zakit forcibly-is absolutely essential on the part of the donor and is required twice if the zakat is paid through a wakl. The faqThin Buyid times was probably thought of as wakil, in precisely this sense. 'Alldma in his Tahrfr agreed with Tfisi. In the Mukhtalif, he disagreed. Where payment was effected through a wakil, niyya was required only once, either by the wakil or the donor, not both. When payment was effected through the imam/ss'i 'Allma denied any distinction between compulsory and voluntary donation: in either case niyya was not required on the part of the donor.53 It thus fell, for 'Allama, that whether the faqThas distributor of zakdt was wakil to the donor or nd'ib to the imam, the burden of niyya could be removed from the donor and transferred to the faqih. The religious reward (ijza') of the individual might be vicariously acquired simply by his submission to the authority of the clerical class. According to Shahid II:

52Tfisi, Mabsitt, zakidt,13; cf. Shifi'i, Umm, I, 19; another example of Shifi'i's influence on Imimi furit'; cf. notes 11 and 21 above. 67; Mukhtalif, 1i,21. 53 'All1ma, Ta.rir,

50 See note 9 above. 51 Above, p. 473.

ZAKATIN IMAMISHI'I JURISPRUDENCE

479

Though complex, both the terminology and the content of that passage are illuminating. It may be analysed as follows: (a) Niyya is incumbent with regard to zakit al-fitra and zakdt al-mdl. (b) (It is incumbent) from either the donor or his wak/l (not both). (c) (It is incumbent) at the time of payment to the recipient or to his (the recipient's) wakIl. in (d) (The recipient's wak/l may be) 'umnim, a general way, i.e. the inuim or his nd'ib 'amm or his nd'ib khass. (e) (Or the recipient's wakil may be) khusuis,that is, his (own personal) wakIl. (f) If the donor does not express niyya on payment to anyone other than the recipient himself or the recipient's personal wak/l or (g) (i.e. if the donor fails to express niyya when he pays to the imnmrn the nd'ib 'dmm or the nd'ib and if the receiver subsequently expresses khssY) niyya on disbursement he (the donor) gains reward.54 It is here confirmed that if the donor pays through the faqih (the nd'ib 'imm of the imdm)-and according to Shahid II it is incumbent that he in fact do just that-he need not undertake niyya because he will gain reward on the basis of the faqih's niyya when he distributes the zakct. Just as the Sunni's religious reward depended finally simply on submission to the authority of the defacto governor, the Imaimi'sreligious reward depended simply on submission to the authority of the clerical class. They depicted themselves as responsible for the collection and distribution of zakat; they further analysed the taxsituation in such a way that their control of zakat was uncircumscribed by the rights or duties of donors. The donor became most certain of reward by unqualified surrender of his zakct to the fuqaha'. The faqThin this assessment of zakdt-distribution was seen to be not wakil to the donor but wakil to the recipient, a position acquired by virtue of his status as nd'ib to the imndm. The fuqahi' were permitted to distribute the zakdt in a rather arbitrary fashion. It was preferable (mustahabb)to pay something to each of the eight recipient categories. But it was not incumbent to deal equally with each group, in fact it was better to give preference to the ' superior', bal al-aftdal taftdilal-murajjah. That, from Shahid II, should be compared with his incorporation of the clerical class into the recipient categories of fuqard' and It mnasdkin.55 is permissible to pay the zakct to only one of the eight categories or even to only one individual within a category. Further it was permissible to provide ighnd', that is to provide more than a sufficiency: there were no limits to how much could be given as long as it was paid at one time.56 The fuqaha' gave themselves a great deal of discretionary power in utilizing and distributing the taxes, payment of which to them they thought incumbent. The locution nd'ib 'Jmm which emerged in Shahid II's discussion of zakct had first appeared in the works of 'Ali ibn IHusaynal-Karaki 57 where, too, it was explicitly contrasted with the term nd'ib ckhass.58 The first of these terms a fully-qualifiedfaqih, sharing in the judicial authority delegated to designates
5"Shahid II, Rawda, 51. 55Above, p. 470. 56 Shahid 50-1. S II, Rawd1a, 7 For whom, see Khwin;gri, Rawd.t al-Janndt, Tehran, 1306, 402-7; E. Glassen, ' Schah Isma'il und die Theologen seiner Zeit ', Der Islam, 48, 1971-2. 58 Karaki, Jdmi', 130-1, ad Friday Prayer; see also ad jihald, 187. The definition of nd'ib khdss given by A. K. S. Lambton, op. cit., 181, footnote, reflects a later development. The use of the term nd'ib khadss the Risala Jihldiyya is certainly to be understood as a reference to the in pre-Ghayba period, or to the sufard', Kohlberg, ' The development of the Imi-mi Shi'i doctrine of jihad ', ZDMG, 1976, 82-6.

480

ZAKATIN IMAMI SHi'I JURISPRUDENCE

the fuqah&'by Ja'far al-*adiq. The second term, nd'ib khass, would appear to indicate the same entity as was in early Imdmi juristic works designated man nasabahu al-imnm, that is, a contemporary of the imdm, or possibly the four sufard'. This distinction in the typology of niyaba, once it emerged, was exploited, particularly by Shahid II in his al-Rawdatal-Bahiyya, for its remarkable explanatory and justificatory value within the structure of juristic argument. The idea of the faqih as nd'ib 'amm to the absent imdm became a key element in a juristic structure which denied shar'i legitimacy to secular powers, while affirmingthe ultimate right of the clerical class to implement the shari'a and promoting in practice their financial independence from the government. This was a doctrine of potential resistance, significantly different from that which existed in Buyid times,59 but it may not be naively interpreted as a revolutionary theory. For, incorporated within the juristic framework of the theory were elements permitting or promoting accommodation between the ruler and the religious classes.60 (The elaboration of the shari'a in Islam was always based on the juxtaposition of formally discrete units in such a way that the full meaning of one unit only becomes clear when the various qualifications implicit or explicit in the framing of other units are taken into consideration.) Different jurists at different times laid varying stress on the notions of illegitimate government or legitimate clerical aspirations or modes of accommodation. But in general the practical result of the Imimi theory was neither clerical rule nor necessarily clerical rebelliousness (though the latter was not unknown, and the former always possible): the Im~mifuqahi' were, however, stronger, richer, and significantly more influential in the state than their Sunni counterparts. The events of the early Safavid period, and especially the biography of al-Karaki, may be thought to confirmthat it was the accommodatory aspects of the shari'a which were generally most relied on to promote the interest of the Imimi faith and to enhance the power and influence of the clerical class.61
"9Above, p. 469. 60 See my forthcoming study, ' Accommodation and revolution in Im~imiShi'i jurisprudence : Khumayni and the classical tradition'. 61 I should like to thank Professor A. K. S. Lambton and Dr. John Wansbrough for their helpful suggestions in the preparation of this study.