Islamic Will RegistryCanada
Register Your Will
Home  ›  Ilm Hub  ›  The four madhahib  ›  Unpaid religious dues — zakat, kaffarah, an
Ilm Hub · Madhhab register

Unpaid religious dues — zakat, kaffarah, an unperformed hajj

This is the sharpest of the classical differences over what comes out of an estate. The Shafi’i and Hanbali schools treat unpaid religious dues as debts payable from the whole estate whether or not the deceased directed it. The Hanafi school holds that they lapse at death unless he directed them, and then only out of the one third. The Maliki position turns on whether he acknowledged the debt while in health.

This is legal information only. For advice on your own circumstances, speak to a lawyer.

Where the four schools differ

This question turns on one issue in our madhhab register: Unpaid religious dues — zakat, kaffarah, an unperformed hajj — where someone dies owing zakat, an expiation or an obligatory hajj and left no instruction about it, must it be paid out of the estate?

Position of each Sunni school on where someone dies owing zakat, an expiation or an obligatory hajj and left no instruction about it, must it be paid out of the estate?
SchoolPosition
Shafi’iHanbali

Yes — payable from the whole estate. An unpaid religious due is a debt like any other and comes out of the capital, bequest or no bequest. The two schools then part company on ranking: where the estate cannot meet both, the Shafi’i school pays God’s due first, on the hadith “the debt owed to God has the better right to be discharged”; the Hanbali school ranks a debt secured on a particular asset first and then all remaining debts equally, drawing no distinction between a due owed to God and one owed to a person.

Sources: al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 11, Tarikah §§21–26: “Tartib al-huquq al-muta‘alliqa bi’l-tarikah” (the order of the claims that attach to an estate) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid, vol. 2 — Book of Wasaya (bequests) and Book of Fara’id (inheritance), trans. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee (Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 595 AH)) — both schools separately named, and their differing ranking rules separately recorded.

Maliki
Classical position

It depends how it was recorded. Where the deceased acknowledged the due before witnesses while in health, it comes out of the capital whether or not he also bequeathed it. Where he only directed it in his will, it comes out of the one third like any other bequest. And where he did neither, Ibn Rushd reports Malik as holding the heirs are not bound to pay it at all. Debts owed to people are paid before dues owed to God, on the reasoning that God has no need and people do.

Sources: al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 11, Tarikah §§21–26: “Tartib al-huquq al-muta‘alliqa bi’l-tarikah” (the order of the claims that attach to an estate) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid, vol. 2 — Book of Wasaya (bequests) and Book of Fara’id (inheritance), trans. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee (Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 595 AH)) — the graduated Maliki rule from the Kuwaiti Encyclopaedia, cross-checked against Ibn Rushd’s report of Malik on zakat.

Hanafi

No — they lapse at death unless he directed them. Discharging a duty owed to God is an act of worship, and an act of worship needs the intention of the person it is owed by; the heirs cannot supply it. If the deceased did direct payment, the direction is treated as a voluntary gift and comes out of the one third, not the capital.

Source: al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 11, Tarikah §§21–26: “Tartib al-huquq al-muta‘alliqa bi’l-tarikah” (the order of the claims that attach to an estate) (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — Hanafi position and its reasoning (al-Fanari) recorded in full.

Researched positions from our madhhab register — issue huquq-allah-from-estate, reviewed 2026-08-19.

A live difference, not a technicality

Ibn Rushd sets the Maliki and Shafi’i positions against each other on exactly this point in the Book of Bequests, so the difference is attested in a comparative work as well as in the school manuals. Note what it does not settle: whether a family may voluntarily pay a relative’s outstanding zakat out of their own inherited shares is a different question, and a common one in Canada.

Full positions, evidence and history: Unpaid religious dues — zakat, kaffarah, an unperformed hajj — the issue page.

Which row is yours? Most families follow the school of their region of origin — the four madhahib page maps them. The comparison is here so you can see your school’s position, not so you can pick the convenient answer — assembling a plan from several schools at once (talfiq) can produce a distribution no school would accept. If your estate turns on this point, put it to a scholar of your school.

Citations & sources

Every factual claim on this page traces to a source below. Details change — check the original source before relying on any figure, fee or legal position.

Classical fiqh works
  1. al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, vol. 11, <i>Tarikah</i> §§21–26: “Tartib al-huquq al-muta‘alliqa bi’l-tarikah” (the order of the claims that attach to an estate) — Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait
  2. al-Mawsu‘a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya (Kuwaiti Encyclopaedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, 45 vols) — Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait
  3. Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid, vol. 2 — Book of Wasaya (bequests) and Book of Fara’id (inheritance), trans. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee — Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 595 AH)