Ruling 1974. When wheat and barley are separated from the chaff, and when dates and grapes become dry, one must give zakat to the poor or separate it from his property. The zakat on gold, silver, cows, sheep, and camels must be given to the poor or separated from one’s property after the eleventh month is complete.

Ruling 1975. After separating zakat [from one’s property], it is not necessary that he immediately gives it to someone who is entitled to receive it, and there is no problem if it is delayed because of a rationally acceptable reason.

Ruling 1976. If a person can deliver zakat to someone entitled to receive it but does not, and the zakat perishes due to his negligence, he must give it again in replacement.

Ruling 1977. If a person can deliver zakat to someone who is entitled to receive it but does not, and it perishes without him being negligent in looking after it, in the event that he did not have a valid reason for the delay, he must give zakat again in replacement. In fact, even if he had a good reason for the delay – for example, he had intended to give it to a poor person in particular, or he wanted to distribute it to poor people gradually – then based on obligatory precaution, he is responsible for it.

Ruling 1978. If a person puts aside zakat from the things on which it had become due, he still has right of disposal over the rest of those things; and if he puts aside zakat from some other property of his, he still has right of disposal over the entire property.

Ruling 1979. A person cannot use for himself zakat that he has set aside and replace it with something else.

Ruling 1980. If some profit accrues from the zakat that a person has set aside – for example, a sheep that has been kept aside for zakat gives birth to a lamb – then the profit is subject to the same rules as the zakat.

Ruling 1981. If someone who is entitled to receive zakat is present when a person sets aside zakat, it is better that he give the zakat to him unless he has someone else in mind and for some reason it is better to give it to that other person instead.

Ruling 1982. If a person transacts with the property that he has set aside as zakat without the authorisation of a fully qualified jurist and incurs a loss, he must not deduct anything from the zakat. However, if he makes a profit, then based on obligatory precaution, he must give it to someone who is entitled to receive zakat.

Ruling 1983. If before zakat becomes obligatory for a person he gives something to the poor as zakat, he cannot count it as zakat. However, if afterwards when zakat becomes obligatory for him the thing that he gave to the poor has not perished and the poor person has remained poor, he can count the thing that he gave him as zakat.

Ruling 1984. If a poor person knows that zakat has not become obligatory for someone and yet accepts something from him as zakat and it perishes while it is with him, he [the poor person] is responsible for it. However, when zakat becomes obligatory for the person, if the poor person has remained poor, the one on whom zakat is obligatory can count the thing he had given the poor person as zakat.

Ruling 1985. If a poor person does not know that zakat has not become obligatory for someone and he accepts something from him as zakat and it perishes while it is with him, he [the poor person] is not responsible for it; and the person who gave the thing cannot count it as zakat.

Ruling 1986. It is recommended for one to give zakat on cows, sheep, and camels to poor persons who are respectable. In giving zakat, one should prefer his relatives, learned, and virtuous persons over others, and those who do not beg over those who beg. However, it might be that giving zakat to a poor person is better for some other reason [in which case, it should be given to that poor person].

Ruling 1987. It is better that zakat be given openly and recommended alms to the poor (ṣadaqah) be given secretly.

Ruling 1988. If in the town of the person who wants to give zakat there is no one entitled to receive it and he cannot spend it in any other legally justified way, he can transfer the zakat to another place. In this case, if he is not negligent in looking after it but it still perishes, he is not responsible for it. Furthermore, he can obtain agency (wikālah) from a fully qualified jurist to take possession of it, and with the authorisation of a fully qualified jurist he can transfer it to another place. In this case too, he is not responsible for any loss, and he can take the transportation costs from the zakat as well.

Ruling 1989. If someone entitled to receive zakat is found in one’s town, he can still take it to another town but he must pay the expenses for transferring it to that town himself. If the zakat perishes, he is responsible for it unless he took it in compliance with the command of a fully qualified jurist.

Ruling 1990. The charges for weighing and measuring wheat, barley, raisins, and dates that one gives as zakat must be paid by himself.

Ruling 1991. It is disapproved (makrūh) for a person to request someone entitled to receive zakat to sell him the zakat he gave him. However, if the person entitled to receive zakat wants to sell the thing he received, then after its price has been determined, the person who gave him the zakat has the first option to buy it.

Ruling 1992. If a person doubts whether or not he gave the zakat that was obligatory for him, and the property that was subject to zakat still exists, he must give zakat even if his doubt is about the zakat of previous years. However, if the property has perished, then zakat is not liable on it even if it relates to the current year.

Ruling 1993. A poor person cannot settle for a lesser amount of zakat before receiving it, nor can he accept something more expensive than the value of the zakat. Furthermore, the giver of zakat cannot give it to someone entitled to receive it on condition that he must return it to him. However, there is no problem if the entitled person consents to return it to him after receiving it. For example, if someone who owes a lot of zakat but has become poor and cannot give it, and he has repented, and a poor person consents to take his zakat from him and gift it back to him, there is no problem.

Ruling 1994. A person cannot purchase the Qur’an, religious books, or books of supplications (duʿāʾs) from the ‘in the way of Allah’ portion of zakat and give them as a charitable endowment (waqf) unless the general public benefit necessitates it, and, based on obligatory precaution, he gets authorisation from a fully qualified jurist.

Ruling 1995. A person cannot buy property from zakat and give it as a charitable endowment to his children or to those whose living expenses are obligatory for him in order that they spend the income generated from that property on their living expenses.

Ruling 1996. A person can take from the ‘in the way of Allah’ portion of zakat for hajj, ziyārah,[1] and suchlike, even if he is not poor or has already taken an amount of zakat that is equal to his annual living expenses, provided that going for hajj, ziyārah, and suchlike is in the general public interest, and, based on obligatory precaution, he has obtained permission from a fully qualified jurist for using zakat in this way.

Ruling 1997. If the owner of some wealth makes a poor person his representative for distributing the zakat of that wealth, in the event that the poor person deems it probable that the owner did not intend for him to take zakat for himself as well, he cannot take anything from it for himself; but, if he has certainty (yaqīn) that this was not the intention of the owner, then he can take from it for himself.

Ruling 1998. If a poor person takes camels, cows, sheep, gold, or silver as zakat, in the event that the conditions for zakat to become obligatory for him are fulfilled with regard to those items, he must give zakat on them.

Ruling 1999. If two people jointly own a property on which zakat is obligatory and one of them gives zakat for his share, and after that they divide the property, then even if he knows that his partner has not given zakat on his share and is not going to give it afterwards, there is no problem in him using his own share of the property.

Ruling 2000. If a person owes the one-fifth tax (khums) or zakat, and recompense (kaffārah), vow (nadhr), and suchlike are also obligatory for him, and he has debt as well, in the event that he cannot pay all of these obligations and the wealth on which khums and zakat are obligatory has not perished, he must pay the khums and zakat. If it has perished, then paying zakat, khums, and settling his debt has priority over kaffārah and nadhr.

Ruling 2001. If a person owes khums or zakat, and ḥajjat al‑islām[2] is obligatory for him, and he has debt as well, then, if he dies and his estate is not sufficient for all of these obligations, in the event that the wealth on which khums and zakat is obligatory has not perished, the khums and zakat must be paid and the rest of his estate must be used to settle his debt. However, if the property on which khums and zakat is obligatory has perished, his estate must be used to settle his debt. If after this anything is left, it must be spent for [hiring someone to perform] hajj [on the deceased’s behalf]; and if after this anything remains, it must be divided between the khums and zakat debts.

Ruling 2002. If a person is engaged in acquiring knowledge and were he not acquiring knowledge he would be working for a living, in the event that acquiring that knowledge is an individual obligation, the portion of zakat for the poor can be given to him. If acquiring that knowledge is in the public interest, it is permitted to give zakat to him from the ‘in the way of Allah’ portion with the authorisation of a fully qualified jurist, based on obligatory precaution. In cases other than these two, it is not permitted to give zakat to him.