or in circumstances where he was plainly negligent—dozing off at the wheel, for example, and the like.

In short, these cooperative funds fall into two categories:

1. A fund that assists the person on whom the accident falls; this is wholesome and entirely unobjectionable.

2. A fund that assists the person from whom the accident originates. Should such a fund be set up—and I do not favor establishing it, yet if it is created—strict care must be taken to verify that the individual who caused the incident was neither negligent nor in breach.

Moreover, no zakat is due on the money kept in this fund, no matter how large it becomes, because the money has no owner. One of the conditions for zakat to be obligatory is that the property have an owner, whereas this fund belongs to no one in particular; it is merely a pool from which anyone struck by misfortune is helped. Those who contributed the money no longer have any right to reclaim it, for they removed it from their own assets for no specific recipient, but rather for collective assistance. Consequently, zakat is not payable on it.

Another question frequently raised is the following: a group of employees agree to deduct from each one’s monthly salary a fixed sum—say one thousand riyals each—or a set percentage, such as ten percent. Whether the deduction is fixed or percentage-based, the collected amount is handed to one member in the first month, to a second member in the next month, a third in the third month, a fourth in the fourth month, and so on until everyone has received a turn, after which the cycle starts again. Some people ask about the ruling on this arrangement.

The answer is that this practice is sound, perfectly permissible, and contains no