The Five Cases and Their Labyrinths
In the interpretations of most Twelver Shia scholars, “khums” refers to the payment of one-fifth of the net surplus remaining from annual income after deducting ordinary living expenses, with variations in details among different religious authorities. Khums is typically divided into two shares: the share of the Sadat (descendants of the Prophet Muhammad), which is to be spent on the poor, orphans, and wayfarers among the Hashemites, according to specific jurisprudential conditions; and the share of the Imam “al-Mahdi,” who is in occultation. During his occultation, this share belongs to the Marja’ al-Taqlid (the religious authority who meets all the required conditions). There is no consensus on the precise meaning of these “conditions.” As the general deputy or agent in religious affairs during the occultation, the Marja’ has the authority to organize the disbursement of these funds for religious and public interests, assist the needy, finance religious education, and support institutions and services linked to society. However, this framework is difficult to implement in practice, and in reality, the matter is left to the discretion of the Marja’ and those who manage his affairs.
Therefore, from a jurisprudential perspective, the khums paid to a Marja’ is not viewed as a “personal salary,” but rather as a trust deposited with a religious authority deemed reliable for managing lawful funds, with the authority to determine their expenditure. This does not imply that every cleric is automatically entitled to receive khums; rather, the decision of who receives it rests entirely with the payer.
The problem lies in the fact that most “Grand Maraji’” attain this status in old age, becoming physically and mentally unable to manage the khums funds under their control. Consequently, their agents often assume this responsibility. Due to decades of controversy over how these funds are managed—especially during periods of significant growth—senior khums payers have decided to take matters into their own hands, either by depositing the funds in their own maraji’ (trusts) or by spending them on charitable projects.
Jurisprudentially, a Marja’ does not own khums funds for personal use, as an individual owns their salary or wealth. Instead, he is expected to act as a trustee for these religious revenues, spending them only for purposes permitted by Islamic law. But what is the rationale or wisdom behind paying khums? The wisdom is that human wealth is not absolute private property; it is linked to religious obligations toward society and the faith. If every wealthy person retained their wealth entirely, who would care for the needy? Who would fund religious education and build places of worship? These are among the responsibilities supported by khums. Moreover, this funding provides religious authorities with financial independence from state budgets, as well as from the funds of political figures and parties.
Historically, khums payments to Maraji’ were straightforward. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran, Iraq, and Gulf countries with Shia populations, and the increase in the number of Marja’ agents, competition has intensified over who can secure the largest share of khums. Disagreements have also grown regarding the areas of khums expenditure, calculation methods, who holds the right to dispose of the funds, the distribution of the Imam’s share, the extent of the Marja’s authority, the level of transparency required in fund management, and whether quarterly reports on the amounts collected and their disbursement should be published.
Ahmed Al-Sarraf
