or unlawful dealings from which he has repented. He is therefore given, in view of his poverty, enough to clear his debt.

6 – The wayfarer (ibn al-sabīl): this is the traveler whose funds have run out while he is away from his homeland, whether his journey was for a lawful purpose or for an unlawful one from which he has now repented. He is to be given what will enable him to reach home, even if he could obtain a loan or is actually wealthy in his own country.

Second: It is impermissible to dispense zakah to anyone outside the eight categories named in the noble verse. Al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr states, “We know of no disagreement on this point.”

Third: It is permissible to allocate the entire zakah to a single category among the eight, even though the others exist; this is the view of the three Imams. Al-Shāfiʿī, however, obliges distribution among all eight categories when one has the ability to do so.

Ibn Rushd said: “The reason for their difference is the tension between wording and purpose. The wording requires partition among them all, whereas the purpose calls for favouring those in greatest need, since the aim is to relieve destitution. Thus, in the view of those scholars, the enumeration in the verse merely identifies the classes entitled to charity, not that they must share it simultaneously. The first position is stronger in terms of wording; the second is stronger in terms of purpose.”

Fourth: Shaykh al-Islām said: “Zakah should not be given to anyone who will not use it to obey Allah, for Allah has prescribed it as an aid to His worship. A needy person who does not pray is not to be given anything from it until he repents and undertakes the prayer. As for one who openly promotes innovation or immorality, he deserves punishment—how, then, should he be assisted in that?!”

Fifth: The restrictive particle innamā (“only”) serves to affirm what follows it and negate everything else; its meaning here is that charity is for these categories alone—it belongs to them and is unlawful for anyone else,