Misconceptions
Home » Islamic Laws of Khums » Misconceptions
On this page
- Focusing on khums rather than zakat
- Khums was not part of the prophetic Sunnah?
- It is “I bear witness that you establish prayer and paid zakat”, not khums!
- The portion of the Sayyids and discrimination
Focusing on khums rather than zakat
It is noted that Shi’a Jurisprudence focuses more on khums than on zakat, despite the Qur’an mentioning khums once while mentioning zakat about 25 times. What is the response of Shi’a jurists to this observation?
The answer: Whether the ruling extracted from a text is based on one verse or more than one verse does not affect the jurisprudential result (i.e., obligation to perform, conditions, halal/haram). This applies to many jurisprudential rulings. Repetition does not alter the strength or weakness of the shari’a ruling. However, there may be divine wisdom behind it known only to Allah Almighty. From another perspective, we notice that even though there are many verses about the obligation of prayer, they emphasize two or three rulings related to it, the direction of the Qiblah, and the prayer times, nothing more. The rest of the verses talk about the importance of prayer, its effects, the reward for those who establish it, the punishment for those who neglect it, the qualities of those who observe it, including their humility, and their submission, as well as other spiritual and moral attributes. This pattern is repeated frequently in the Qur’an. Take, for example, the name of our noble Prophet (pbuh&hp), which is mentioned only four times in the Qur’an, while the Qur’an mentions the names of other prophets like Prophet Moses (p) and Prophet Jesus (p) many more times. Does this mean they hold a higher status and are more honored than the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers, Muhammad (pbuh&hp)? Therefore, certainly, repetition does not imply priority or superiority, especially in matters of shari’a rulings.
Secondly, khums is one form of financial worship among the various types of financial worship. All of these forms are called zakat, and khums is one of its branches. Khums is not separate from zakat but rather a specific component under this general category of worship. Therefore, there is no meaning in emphasizing khums without zakat.
As for the reason why Shi’a jurisprudence engages in extensive treatment of khums issues compared to zakat is due to the limited context of issues such as zakat al-Fitra, zakat al-An’am, and zakat al-Ghulat, and the absence of zakat al-Maal (on gold dinars and silver dirhams) in later eras. In contrast, there is wide-ranging engagement of people in trade and various other forms of business, as well as diversity of financial resources, conditions, and changes over time. This resulted in a multitude of questions being asked of the immaculate Imams (peace be upon them) over extended periods of time. These questions were inherited by the jurists and continued to expand over time with the development of trade and investment. Therefore, it was only natural that research and jurisprudential issues related to khums expanded and broadened to a greater extent than zakat.
Khums was not part of the prophetic Sunnah?
Is it not the case that everything the Prophet (pbuh&hp) and his household (peace be upon them) proclaimed was in fact first implemented by them? However, in reality, we do not find evidence in their biographies that they paid khums. Isn’t this an indication that it was introduced in later times?
Answer: Practical implementation of Sunnah is only one of the indicators and signs of legitimacy, and it does not constitute primary evidence for legislation after it has been established from the Qur’an or authentic Sunnah.
As such, this is a false and audacious claim and fabrication about the Prophet (pbuh&hp) and his household (peace be upon them). Where did this idea come from, especially since Islamic history has been reported by many prominent biographers, chroniclers, and historians, and none of them have denied the practice of this obligation by the Prophet (pbuh&hp) or his household (peace be upon them) after they had elaborated and delved deeply into the details of their lives?
Even if we were to entertain and accept this false claim for the sake of argument, there are observations that the rational and pious person should consider:
- First, the absence of something being documented does not indicate that it is not real. If the biography does not mention a particular action, it does not necessarily mean that the Prophet or his family did not do it. Perhaps the biographers just didn’t mention it, or because it was a common practice, they did not elaborate on it, as might be the case with not explicitly mentioning that the Prophet used to give charity or pray due to the abundance of such actions from him and the lack of need to further state them.
- Second, perhaps there was negligible economic prosperity during the time when historians wrote about the life of the Prophet or a particular Imam such that the practice of this worship was not noticeable enough to attract the attention of researchers. History tells us about the difficult days that Muslims went through, from the early days of Islam until the Abbasid era, when prosperity and abundance of wealth and riches prevailed. Therefore, this claim may be a result of the prevailing economic conditions of that period.
- Third, studying other aspects of the life of the Prophet (pbuh&hp) and his family indicates that they practiced the highest levels of generosity and selflessness by prioritizing the provision of food to the poor and needy Muslims over themselves, even if they were in need. Surah Ad-Dahr (Al-Insan) portrays this noble family fasting for three consecutive days as a fulfillment of their vow, during which they fed a poor person, an orphan, and a polytheist captive who lived among the Muslims. They preferred these needy individuals over themselves by offering them food while contenting themselves with breaking their fast on water only. So, where would the surplus profits come from to pay their khums so that a historian could take note and record it?
- Fourth, how did these conjecturers overlook the era of the Abbasid Caliphate, during which prosperity, luxury, urbanization, and extravagance prevailed? Khums funds were collected for the pure Imams, and because of it, they faced harassment and imprisonment by the Abbasid rulers. They themselves were wealthy and had no material need, but they accepted khums as an obligation and practiced it. It has been reported from Imam al-Sadiq (p) that he said: “[how is it that] I take a dirham from one of you, and I am among the wealthiest people in Medina. I do not want anything except your purification.”48 So, how do these individuals dare to make such claims?
It is “I bear witness that you establish prayer and paid zakat”, not khums!
This passage from the ziyarah of Imam al-Sadiq (p) to his grandfather Imam al-Hussain (p) and his statement “I bear witness that you established prayer and gave zakat…” clearly indicates the rejection of the importance of khums, otherwise he would have said “and gave khums” instead of zakat.
The Answer:
- We mentioned earlier that the term “zakat” is a general term that includes all types of obligatory and recommended giving, including khums. Thus, it is the perfect way to describe him by mentioning the general form of giving without specifying it, especially since the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) acted upon all obligatory and recommended qualities.
- Even if we accept that the term was meant to be specific and acknowledge that it refers to the customary zakat, we must understand that khums collected by them, may Allah’s peace be upon them, in the absence of a specific spending source, is still administered by them as part of their authority. Hence, they would allocate it to other matters, where there was need, including giving to needy believers, which is also a form of zakat.
- If specifically mentioning prayer and zakat here was to emphasize their importance, then it would have been more appropriate to specify the type of prayer, as in the Qur’anic text emphasizing the middle prayer, or how enjoining good and forbidding evil was explicitly declared by Imam Hussain (p) and announced as the reason for his uprising and departure. Or mentioning jihad, for example, when Imam Hussain and his family, companions, and even infants sacrificed everything for Islam.
The portion of the Sayyids and discrimination
Some people who lack understanding of religious rulings and the philosophy behind them may raise unfounded allegations against Islam. One such misconception is that Islam favored the Prophet’s descendants by allocating half of the khums proceeds to them. This notion contradicts the principles of justice advocated by the Qur’an and Islam. In fact, it is discrimination in itself.
In response, we can say that Islam established a comprehensive system of financial worship, of which khums is just one aspect, not all of it. Many types of charity, including various forms of zakat, were designated for the general needy population, while some were specifically prohibited for the descendants of Hashim. For example, verse 60 of Surah At-Tawbah mentions: “sadaqat are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakat] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler – an obligation [imposed] by Allah. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” This verse mentions eight categories of those in need with detailed descriptions.
As for the reason for the distinction or specification, it is based on a profound wisdom and a very precise objective mentioned in some detail in the book “Tafsir al-Amthul“, which explains the noble verse and its essence.
Before anything else, we must pay attention to:
- In reality, this half (the share of the sayyids) falls under the third part of the first category, namely the legitimate successor of the Prophet, who is the infallible Imam to whom matters of general leadership and administration of the Islamic community are referred. Among his priorities and duties is to alleviate poverty and injustice, even if it concerns the relatives of the Prophet.
- This share is only given to the needy sayyids from Banu Hashim, not to all those who might be affiliated, and only to the extent that it covers their annual needs, no more. As for those who are able to work “actually or in terms of capability” and provide for their livelihood without any impediment such as illness, hardship, or disability, it is not permissible for them to take the khums. “What they are able to suffice with annually.”49
- If the Banu Hashim do not need this share, it goes back to the Muslim treasury (Bait al-Mal) to be allocated to its general expenditures.
This indicates that there is no fundamental difference between the two forms of financial obligations. Banu Hashim were prohibited from certain types of sadaqa and in return afforded acceptance and use of khums, while various types of charity were allocated to the general public, who were deprived of the khums. Thus, there is a specified and balanced equation and scope: one for a fund called “zakat” and another called “khums”, and the fiscal liability for each is one year. As Imam al-Sadiq (p) said: “When sadaqa was forbidden for us, khums was [then] revealed to us.”50
So, what is the reason?
It seems that since zakat is from the public wealth taxes and its proceeds are allocated to public entities, the sayyids from Banu Hashim were deprived of it. Instead, khums was instituted for them, not for any reason other than to distance them from the public funds of the Muslims, as a precaution against any possibilities that might affect them with authority and governance due to their relation to the Prophet (pbuh&hp). Allah knows best. Therefore, khums would not be considered a privilege for Banu Hashim; rather, it is a measure taken for their higher interests and to dispel any suspicions or ill feelings.
Many narrations, including those found in books like “Wasa’il al-Shi’a” and “Al-Kafi” report that some individuals from Banu Hashim approached the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh&hp) asking to be appointed to manage the sadaqa of livestock. They argued that they were more deserving of this share, which Allah had designated for “amileen alayha”. The Prophet (pbuh&hp) responded, “Sadaqah is not permissible for me nor for you,” and he continued, “Do you see me giving preference to you over others?”
Similarly, in Sahih Muslim, it is narrated that al-Abbas and Rabi’a bin Al-Harith came to the Prophet (pbuh&hp) and asked him to appoint their sons, Abdul-Muttalib bin Rabi’a and Al-Fadl bin Abbas, to collect zakat so that they could take a share of it like others, ensuring enough money for their marriage. However, the Prophet (pbuh&hp) declined and instructed them to fulfill their needs from the khums instead.
It is understood from this that the Prophet (pbuh&hp) intended to keep the Hashemites away from the Muslim treasury, but he allocated for them what would fulfill their needs, within certain limits and conditions.
Indeed, if this legislation was intended to honor the Prophet (pbuh&hp) by dignifying his offspring as an obligation, then it must be taken in a positive and sound context, meaning it would be honoring the Messenger himself, and it cannot be interpreted in a way contrary to its reality. The principles of “one preserves in his offspring” and “for the sake of one eye, a thousand eyes are honored” are noble traditions followed by nations and peoples, both in past times and more recently. Hence, it is more appropriate for this obligation to be applied for the righteous descendants and lineage of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him and his family. There is nothing in this that implies classism or discrimination whatsoever. Is respecting a teacher and a non-teacher the same? Is the esteem for a scholar and a layman the same?