Mu'allafat al-Qulub
Mu'allafat al-Qulub means "those whose hearts are to be brought closer". It is the fourth of the eight groups who may receive Zakat. It was used to support new Muslims and to win goodwill where it was needed. Scholars differ over whether it still applies.
HAF distributes Zakat within the agreed categories through its Zakat appeal.
What the Name Means
Qulub means hearts. The other word is the interesting one.
The root behind mu'allafa means to join things together, to make them familiar with one another, to turn strangers into company. The same root gives the Arabic word for an alliance, and for the kind of ease that grows between people who know each other well.
So this is not "those who are won over" in the sense of being bought. It is "those whose hearts are being brought together" - brought into the fold, made comfortable, settled.
The Qur'an uses that same verb for something remarkable. Speaking of the tribes of Madinah, who had been at war for generations, it says that He brought their hearts together, and that if you had spent everything on earth you could not have done it (Qur'an 8:63). It appears again where the believers are reminded that He joined their hearts, so that by His favour they became brothers (Qur'an 3:103).
The category is named after an act the Qur'an attributes to Allah. That is worth sitting with before reading the rest.
Where It Was Used
After the battle of Hunayn, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ distributed what had been gained, and gave generously to recent converts and to the leaders of the tribes - those, as the narration puts it, whose hearts it was intended to win (Sahih Muslim 1061).
The Ansar of Madinah, who had given him everything, received none of it. Some of them said so.
He gathered them and asked what he had heard was true. Then he reminded them: had he not found them in error and Allah guided them through him; destitute, and Allah enriched them through him; divided, and Allah brought their hearts together through him. And then: would you not rather the people went home with sheep and camels, and you went home with the Messenger of Allah? They wept, and said they were content (Sahih al-Bukhari 4330; Sahih Muslim 1061).
Notice what the exchange establishes. Wealth went to those whose attachment was still forming. Nothing went to those whose hearts were already settled. The giving tracked need, not merit - and the Ansar, who needed none of it, were told plainly that they had the better share.
Who It Covered
Classical scholars listed several kinds of people under this heading.
New Muslims whose position was still fragile, particularly those who had lost standing or support by converting.
Leaders among their own people, whose goodwill would carry others with them, or whose hostility would cause harm.
Those at the edges of the community whose loyalty mattered to everyone's safety.
Some scholars also included people who were not Muslim at all, where giving might incline them towards Islam or avert harm. That is the most debated part of the category, and it is covered in the questions below.
Did It Lapse?
This is the live scholarly question, and it is a genuinely interesting one.
It is reported that Umar ibn al-Khattab declined to continue these payments, on the grounds that Islam no longer stood in need of them. Hanafi scholars take this as settling the matter: the category existed for a situation, the situation passed, and the share now goes elsewhere.
Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali scholars disagree. The verse names eight groups and does not attach conditions to any of them. A category named by the Qur'an does not disappear because one generation found no use for it; it waits until it is needed again.
Underneath is a question that reaches well beyond Zakat: can a rule stated in the Qur'an fall out of use because the reason for it has gone? Serious scholars have answered both ways, and the same argument reappears over Riqab, the category for freeing people from bondage.
Scholars also differ over whether someone who could borrow the money should do so first. Some require it. Others point out that a stranger in a strange place often has nobody to borrow from, which is the whole reason the category exists.
What It Could Mean Now
For scholars who hold the category still stands, the clearest modern application is also the one closest to home.
A person who becomes Muslim in Britain may lose a great deal in a single afternoon. Family contact. A place to live. Financial support from parents. The social world they grew up in. Converts, and particularly women, are over-represented among those who become destitute shortly after becoming Muslim, and under-represented among those anyone is organised to help.
That is precisely the situation this category was written for: a heart newly attached, and a life suddenly unsteady.
Other applications are argued over. Some extend it to da'wah work or to building relations between communities. Others say that stretches a category about individual people into a category about activities, and that such work belongs to voluntary charity instead.
Frequently Asked Questions
Some classical scholars allowed it here, which makes this the one category where that question even arises - Zakat is otherwise understood as going to Muslim recipients. Others restricted it to new Muslims only. If you want to help someone who is not Muslim, voluntary charity carries no restriction at all and avoids the question entirely.
On the view that the category still applies, yes, and it is close to a textbook case. On the view that it has lapsed, such a person will almost always qualify as poor instead, which reaches the same result. Either way they can be helped. It is worth asking a charity which basis it is using, because it tells you something about how carefully they think.
Disputed, and leaning against. The category names people, not projects. Scholars who read it broadly allow some outreach spending; many hold that da'wah, like education, is worth funding generously from Sadaqah, where no restriction applies. The same argument runs through the Fi Sabilillah debate.
No, and the Hunayn account answers it. Belief is not something money buys, and nothing here suggests otherwise. What the giving did was remove the cost of a decision already made, and build goodwill where hostility would have caused harm. The Ansar received nothing precisely because their hearts needed no settling - and they were told they had the better portion. A system paying for belief would have rewarded them most of all.
It goes to the other categories, as happens with any group not present. Only the Shafi'i school divides Zakat among all available categories to begin with, and even there an empty one simply drops out. In practice almost nobody encounters this as a decision - a charity distributes to those in front of it.
Did It Lapse?
This is the live scholarly question, and it is a genuinely interesting one.
It is reported that Umar ibn al-Khattab declined to continue these payments, on the grounds that Islam no longer stood in need of them. Hanafi scholars take this as settling the matter: the category existed for a situation, the situation passed, and the share now goes elsewhere.
Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali scholars disagree. The verse names eight groups and does not attach conditions to any of them. A category named by the Qur'an does not disappear because one generation found no use for it; it waits until it is needed again.
Underneath is a question that reaches well beyond Zakat: can a rule stated in the Qur'an fall out of use because the reason for it has gone? Serious scholars have answered both ways, and the same argument reappears over Riqab, the category for freeing people from bondage.
Scholars also differ over whether someone who could borrow the money should do so first. Some require it. Others point out that a stranger in a strange place often has nobody to borrow from, which is the whole reason the category exists.
For scholars who hold the category still stands, the clearest modern application is also the one closest to home.
A person who becomes Muslim in Britain may lose a great deal in a single afternoon. Family contact. A place to live. Financial support from parents. The social world they grew up in. Converts, and particularly women, are over-represented among those who become destitute shortly after becoming Muslim, and under-represented among those anyone is organised to help.
That is precisely the situation this category was written for: a heart newly attached, and a life suddenly unsteady.
Other applications are argued over. Some extend it to da'wah work or to building relations between communities. Others say that stretches a category about individual people into a category about activities, and that such work belongs to voluntary charity instead.
Frequently Asked Questions
Some classical scholars allowed it here, which makes this the one category where that question even arises - Zakat is otherwise understood as going to Muslim recipients. Others restricted it to new Muslims only. If you want to help someone who is not Muslim, voluntary charity carries no restriction at all and avoids the question entirely.
On the view that the category still applies, yes, and it is close to a textbook case. On the view that it has lapsed, such a person will almost always qualify as poor instead, which reaches the same result. Either way they can be helped. It is worth asking a charity which basis it is using, because it tells you something about how carefully they think.
Disputed, and leaning against. The category names people, not projects. Scholars who read it broadly allow some outreach spending; many hold that da'wah, like education, is worth funding generously from Sadaqah, where no restriction applies. The same argument runs through the Fi Sabilillah debate.
No, and the Hunayn account answers it. Belief is not something money buys, and nothing here suggests otherwise. What the giving did was remove the cost of a decision already made, and build goodwill where hostility would have caused harm. The Ansar received nothing precisely because their hearts needed no settling - and they were told they had the better portion. A system paying for belief would have rewarded them most of all.
It goes to the other categories, as happens with any group not present. Only the Shafi'i school divides Zakat among all available categories to begin with, and even there an empty one simply drops out. In practice almost nobody encounters this as a decision - a charity distributes to those in front of it.