When institutions grow, but the poor remain hungry, we must ask—are we preserving religion, or neglecting its purpose?
Er Ishfaq Khaliq
Zakat, one of the fundamental pillars of Islam, is not merely a charitable act—it is a divinely mandated right (haqq) of the poor upon the wealth of the affluent. The Qur’an clearly outlines its recipients in Surah At-Tawbah (9:60), placing the poor (fuqarā) and needy (masākīn) at the forefront. This emphasis reflects the primary objective of Zakat: alleviating poverty and ensuring social justice. However, in many regions today, particularly in areas with a dense network of religious institutions such as Darul Ulooms, a critical question arises: Is Zakat still reaching the poor, or is it increasingly being absorbed by institutions?
Over time, a strong culture has developed where people prefer to give their Zakat to religious institutions, especially Darul Ulooms. These institutions undoubtedly play a vital role in preserving Islamic knowledge, nurturing scholars, and maintaining religious identity. Yet, as their numbers increase, so does their financial dependence on Zakat. This creates a structural shift. Instead of Zakat flowing directly to the poor, it is increasingly being channelled into institutions.
The crucial principle according to the Hanafi school of thought is that Zakat must involve tamleek—the transfer of ownership—to an eligible individual. This means:
– Zakat must make a poor person the owner of the funds.
– It cannot simply be used for general institutional expenses.
While it is permissible to give Zakat to a poor student, the key condition remains: the student must personally receive and own the Zakat, spending it according to his daily needs—whether personal or institutional—regardless of the form this may take. Directly funding institutions without fulfilling this condition risks invalidating the spirit—and sometimes even the legality—of Zakat.
As more Darul Ulooms emerge and expand, their financial needs grow. If a significant portion of Zakat is consistently directed towards sustaining these institutions, a serious concern arises: are the poorest members of society being unintentionally sidelined?
In many communities, widows struggle silently, daily wage earners barely meet their needs, and orphans lack basic support. Yet, these individuals often remain outside organised Zakat networks, while institutions receive structured and continuous funding. This creates an imbalance. The most visible recipients become institutions; the most deserving recipients risk becoming invisible—as if they lack any authorisation to receive Zakat. When one gives Zakat to an institute or a Darul Uloom, there is a perception that this act alone secures one’s path to Jannah, yet this risks neglecting what Islam has fundamentally taught.
Zakat is not just a financial transaction; it is a moral and social system designed to redistribute wealth, reduce inequality, and preserve human dignity.
When its distribution becomes overly institutionalised, two risks emerge:
- Concentration of resources in organised bodies
- Marginalisation of unorganised poverty
Even if institutions serve noble purposes, the primary right of the poor must not be overshadowed.
This is not an argument against Darul Ulooms. Their role is essential and valuable. Rather, it is a call for balance and accountability:
– Zakat should prioritise direct support to the poor and needy.
– Institutions should ensure strict compliance with tamleek.
– Communities should develop systems to identify and support hidden poverty.
Zakat is not a donation—it is a right that must reach its rightful owners, not remain confined within the walls of institutions. When institutions grow, but the poor remain hungry, we must ask: are we preserving religion, or neglecting its purpose?
– The growth of Darul Ulooms should not result in the neglect of justice for the poor.
– If Zakat stops reaching the weakest, then the very essence of this pillar is at risk.
– A system where buildings are sustained, but people are struggling, is a system that needs reflection, not celebration.
– The poor do not need our sympathy; they need what Allah has already made obligatory for them from our wealth.
– Every rupee of Zakat diverted away from a deserving recipient is not just a financial misplacement—it is a moral responsibility left unfulfilled.
– Institutions are important, but they are not the primary recipients of Zakat; the poor are.
– If we fail to see the hungry around us but continue funding structures, then our priorities demand serious correction.
– Zakat was meant to break cycles of poverty, not create cycles of dependency on institutional systems alone.
– The real test is not how many Darul Ulooms we sustain, but how many lives we uplift from poverty.
A healthy model would prioritise people-first distribution, with institutions acting as facilitators, not primary recipients. The increase in Darul Ulooms has undoubtedly strengthened religious education. But it has also introduced a challenge: ensuring that Zakat does not drift away from its original purpose.
If the current trend continues unchecked, there is a real risk that the most deserving may receive the least. Zakat must remain what it was meant to be—a lifeline for the poor, not merely a funding stream for institutions. The responsibility lies with scholars, institutions, and the public alike to restore this balance so that the right of the poor is not only acknowledged but truly fulfilled.
The writer is a senior engineer at ANAF Pvt Ltd and the author of ‘Silent Struggle’.
is**************@***il.com