Amilin
Amilin are the people appointed to collect and distribute Zakat. They are the third of the eight groups who may receive it. Unlike the others, they are paid for work rather than helped in need, so an amil may be wealthy and still take a share.
HAF distributes Zakat through its Zakat appeal.
What the Words Mean
The Qur'an does not simply say al-amilin, "the workers". It says al-ʿamilina ʿalayha - those who work over it.
That small preposition does a lot of work. Working over something means being set above it, placed in charge of it. The phrase describes someone appointed to a task, not someone who decided to take it on.
Most of the disagreement about this category, then and now, comes back to that one word. If the role requires appointment, who does the appointing?
A single person in the role is an amil. You will see the plural written amilin, aamileen or aamilin. Same word.
Paid, Not Helped
This is the only one of the eight categories where need does not come into it.
The poor receive because they are poor. The debtor because they cannot repay. The traveller because they are cut off. The amil receives because they did a job, and the Qur'an made the Zakat fund responsible for paying for its own administration.
So an amil may be wealthy and still take their share. It is a wage, not relief. Someone who collects, verifies, records and distributes Zakat is doing necessary work, and the alternative - expecting it to be done free - would mean it was done badly or not at all.
Two other categories allow a wealthy person to receive: the stranded traveller, and the person who took on a debt to settle a dispute between others. But both of those are about circumstance. This one is about employment, which makes it different in kind rather than degree.
Who May Be Appointed
Scholars list conditions. They are Muslim, adult, of sound mind, trustworthy, and know enough of the rules to apply them - someone who cannot tell who qualifies cannot do the job.
One group is barred, and the reason is striking.
Two young men of the Prophet Muhammad's ﷺ own family came to him asking to be appointed over the Zakat so they could earn and marry. He refused. Zakat, he told them, is the washings of people's wealth, and is not permissible for Muhammad or for the family of Muhammad (reported in Sahih Muslim).
His own relatives were turned away from a paid post because the money was Zakat. Whatever else that establishes, it rules out the idea that this category exists as a convenience for insiders.
The Gift Rule
The most useful thing in this entire subject is a single incident, and it happened to a Zakat collector.
The Prophet ﷺ appointed a man known as Ibn al-Lutbiyyah to collect Zakat from a tribe. When he came back he presented the money and said: this is yours, and this was given to me as a gift.
The Prophet ﷺ called him to account, then went up to the pulpit, praised Allah, and addressed everyone. What is the matter with a man I appoint to a task, who comes back and says "this is for you and this was given to me"? Why did he not sit in his father's house or his mother's house and see whether any gift came to him?
Then the warning. By the One in whose hand my soul is, nobody takes anything of this unlawfully without carrying it on his neck on the Day of Resurrection - a camel grunting, a cow lowing, a sheep bleating (Sahih al-Bukhari 7174; Sahih Muslim 1832).
Bukhari files this under a chapter heading that could sit in a modern staff handbook: gifts taken by employees. Muslim's is blunter still: the prohibition of giving gifts to agents.
The reasoning is exact and has not dated. The gift was not offered to the man. It was offered to the office he was holding. He had no claim to it, because he would not have received it sitting at home.
What an Amil May Take
A fair wage for the work, is the short answer.
Shafi'i scholars set a ceiling of one-eighth of the fund, which follows from their view that Zakat is divided equally among the categories present. Others set no fixed proportion and look instead at what the work is reasonably worth, which may be more or less than an eighth depending on the size of the fund.
Nobody holds that an amil may take whatever they like, and nobody holds they should work for nothing.
Charities Today
Whether a modern charity counts as an amil is the live question, and UK scholars disagree sharply about it. It is set out in full on the Asnaf page rather than repeated here.
The short version: some hold that a charity is appointed by the donor rather than by an authority, and so cannot take Zakat for its costs. Others hold that the category exists precisely to pay for this work, whoever is doing it. HAF does not take administration costs from donations, so the question does not arise for a HAF donor either way.
Frequently Asked Questions
That is the crux of the disagreement. The classical amil was appointed by a ruler, and the Qur'anic phrase suggests someone placed in charge rather than self-selected. Scholars who hold the role requires public appointment conclude that a private charity does not qualify. Scholars who read the category as describing the function rather than the appointer conclude that it does. Both positions are held in Britain today.
Yes. The restriction is on receiving Zakat, not on employment. Someone of that lineage can work for a charity, including on its Zakat programmes, provided their salary comes from other funds. Many organisations keep that separation anyway for other reasons.
Anything offered to someone because of the position they hold rather than because of who they are. Hospitality from a supplier bidding for work. A payment from a community expecting their case to be prioritised. The test the Prophet ﷺ gave is simple and still works: would this have arrived at your house if you did not hold this job? If not, it belongs to the organisation, not to you.
Scholars differ. Some treat them as a cost of moving the money and allow deduction. Others hold the Zakat must reach recipients in full and that fees belong elsewhere. Many UK charities absorb them from unrestricted funds for exactly that reason. Worth asking any organisation how it handles this.
Generally yes, since the wage is a cost of the work rather than a claim on what is left afterwards. But it is one of the places where a charity's accounting should be clear and visible. An organisation that cannot show what came in, what went out and what was taken for administration is not meeting the standard this category sets.
The Gift Rule
The most useful thing in this entire subject is a single incident, and it happened to a Zakat collector.
The Prophet ﷺ appointed a man known as Ibn al-Lutbiyyah to collect Zakat from a tribe. When he came back he presented the money and said: this is yours, and this was given to me as a gift.
The Prophet ﷺ called him to account, then went up to the pulpit, praised Allah, and addressed everyone. What is the matter with a man I appoint to a task, who comes back and says "this is for you and this was given to me"? Why did he not sit in his father's house or his mother's house and see whether any gift came to him?
Then the warning. By the One in whose hand my soul is, nobody takes anything of this unlawfully without carrying it on his neck on the Day of Resurrection - a camel grunting, a cow lowing, a sheep bleating (Sahih al-Bukhari 7174; Sahih Muslim 1832).
Bukhari files this under a chapter heading that could sit in a modern staff handbook: gifts taken by employees. Muslim's is blunter still: the prohibition of giving gifts to agents.
The reasoning is exact and has not dated. The gift was not offered to the man. It was offered to the office he was holding. He had no claim to it, because he would not have received it sitting at home.
A fair wage for the work, is the short answer.
Shafi'i scholars set a ceiling of one-eighth of the fund, which follows from their view that Zakat is divided equally among the categories present. Others set no fixed proportion and look instead at what the work is reasonably worth, which may be more or less than an eighth depending on the size of the fund.
Nobody holds that an amil may take whatever they like, and nobody holds they should work for nothing.
Whether a modern charity counts as an amil is the live question, and UK scholars disagree sharply about it. It is set out in full on the Asnaf page rather than repeated here.
The short version: some hold that a charity is appointed by the donor rather than by an authority, and so cannot take Zakat for its costs. Others hold that the category exists precisely to pay for this work, whoever is doing it. HAF does not take administration costs from donations, so the question does not arise for a HAF donor either way.
Frequently Asked Questions
That is the crux of the disagreement. The classical amil was appointed by a ruler, and the Qur'anic phrase suggests someone placed in charge rather than self-selected. Scholars who hold the role requires public appointment conclude that a private charity does not qualify. Scholars who read the category as describing the function rather than the appointer conclude that it does. Both positions are held in Britain today.
Yes. The restriction is on receiving Zakat, not on employment. Someone of that lineage can work for a charity, including on its Zakat programmes, provided their salary comes from other funds. Many organisations keep that separation anyway for other reasons.
Anything offered to someone because of the position they hold rather than because of who they are. Hospitality from a supplier bidding for work. A payment from a community expecting their case to be prioritised. The test the Prophet ﷺ gave is simple and still works: would this have arrived at your house if you did not hold this job? If not, it belongs to the organisation, not to you.
Scholars differ. Some treat them as a cost of moving the money and allow deduction. Others hold the Zakat must reach recipients in full and that fees belong elsewhere. Many UK charities absorb them from unrestricted funds for exactly that reason. Worth asking any organisation how it handles this.
Generally yes, since the wage is a cost of the work rather than a claim on what is left afterwards. But it is one of the places where a charity's accounting should be clear and visible. An organisation that cannot show what came in, what went out and what was taken for administration is not meeting the standard this category sets.