Philanthropy, Faith, and the State: Theological, Jurisprudential, and Political Perspectives from the School of Hilla on Shia Charitable Practice

Introduction:
Charitable giving, particularly through Zakat and Khums, is a fundamental pillar of Imāmi Shia religious practice. This paper examines the formative role of the School of Hilla (6th–8th century Hijri) in shaping Shia philanthropic thought and practice. As a key intellectual center in medieval Shia Islam, the School of Hilla flourished during a period marked by significant political and social transformations. It played a crucial role in defining the governance of religious dues (al-wujūhāt al-shar'īyya) through two interconnected lenses: the impact of political and social changes under Mongol rule and internal jurisprudential evolutions, particularly regarding ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) and the theory of general appointment of jurists by the Imām. By analyzing the contributions of key figures like Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ḥillī and Al-Allāmah al-Ḥillī, this paper underscores the enduring legacy of the School of Hilla in shaping the theological, jurisprudential, and political dimensions of Shia charitable practice. This paper is part of my ongoing Ph.D. research exploring the dynamics and effectiveness of charitable practices within Imāmi Shia thought.

Research Questions:

• How did engagement with Mongol rule and internal jurisprudential developments in the School of Hilla influence the discourse on Zakat and Khums?
• How did Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ḥillī and Al-Allāmah al-Ḥillī conceptualize the role of jurists (fuqaha) in managing these religious dues during the Imām's occultation?
• What is the enduring impact of these developments on contemporary Shia charitable structures and debates on religious philanthropy and state authority?

Methodology:
This research employs historical analysis of the socio-political context of the School of Hilla, particularly during the Mongol era, alongside close textual interpretation of key juristic works. Primary sources include:

• By Mohaghegh Ḥillī: Sharāʾiʿ al-Islām, Al-Muʿtabar fī Sharḥ al-Mukhtaṣar, Mukhtaṣar al-Nāfiʿ fī Fiqh al-Imāmiyya.
• By Allameh Ḥillī: Mukhtalif al-Shīʿa fī Aḥkām al-Sharīʿa, Nihāyat al-Aḥkām fī Maʿrifat al-Aḥkām, Qawāʿid al-Aḥkām fī Maʿrifat al-Ḥalāl wa al-Ḥarām, Tadhkirat al-Fuqahāʾ, Taḥrīr al-Aḥkām al-Sharʿiyya ʿalā Madhhab al-Imāmiyya, and Irshād al-Adhhān ilā Aḥkām al-Īmān. 

A comparative perspective will link these debates to broader discussions on the socio-political contexts shaping jurisprudential rulings.

Key Themes and Arguments:
This paper argues that the School of Hilla was instrumental in shaping Shia charitable practices through its response to Mongol rule and its internal jurisprudential advancements.

• Political Context: The Mongol Conquest provided a distinct political landscape. Unlike previous Sunni rulers, the Mongols did not inherently oppose Shi’ism (Rahdar 2019), creating opportunities for Shia scholars to engage with political power. Figures like Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi, Sayyid Ibn Tawus, and Al-Allāmah al-Ḥillī strategically interacted with the Mongol administration, leading to intellectual and religious advancements, including the conversion of Öljaitü to Shi’ism (Pakatchi and Udi 2019; Hasan Ali 2016). This engagement allowed Shia jurisprudence to expand its discourse on governance and religious dues.
   
• Jurisprudential Development: The Ḥilla school of jurisprudence is known for its rational approach to Islamic legal theory, emphasizing intellectual reasoning over traditionalism. It integrated practical principles with rational discourse, expanding ijtihād while engaging with Sunni jurisprudence to refine its framework. The school emphasized the four primary sources of law—the Qur'an, Sunnah, consensus, and reason—and introduced novel criteria, such as requiring a qualified jurist to be *alive* to serve as a legitimate source of emulation. It also accepted probabilistic sources, like solitary reports, expanding the tools for deriving legal rulings (Pakatchi and Udi 2019). This led to significant changes in the management of Khums and Zakat.
  1. Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ḥillī was the foremost Shia jurist during the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate to the Mongol ruler Hulagu Khan (Ashraf Fathi 2021). He maintained that in the absence of the Imām, trustworthy Shia jurists (Faqīh Jāmi‘ al-Sharā’iṭ) are generally appointed by the Imām to oversee the khums—specifically the Imām’s share (sahm al-Imām). As such, they are also responsible for the collection and distribution of zakat (Sharāʾiʿ, vol. 1: 152), given their greater awareness of the needs of the impoverished in society.
     This view laid the groundwork for the financial autonomy of Shia religious institutions, redefining the purpose of charity within Shiite thought. The Imām’s share, originally individual act of giving directed toward poverty alleviation, came to serve a broader role in sustaining the religious and social infrastructure of the Shia community.
      
  2. Al-Muhaqqiq also held specific views on Zakat. He believed that the owner's word should be accepted regarding its payment and did not advocate for forceful governmental collection during the Imām's absence, arguing against the Sunni view on this matter (Sharāʾiʿ, vol. 2: 587). He considered Zakat a form of worship and did not believe in compelling individuals to fulfill divine rights.
      
  3. Al-ʿAllāmah al-Ḥillī argued that during the Imām’s time, zakat could even be collected by force, invoking the principle of enjoining good and forbidding evil (al-amr bi-l-maʿrūf wa-n-nahy ʿan al-munkar) (Nihāyat al-Aḥkām, vol. 2: 298). Expanding on the concept of juristic authority in the Imām’s absence, he further maintained that jurists, as the Imām’s vicegerents, also have the authority to collect zakat (Taḥrīr al-Aḥkām vol. 1: 396). His position marked a shift toward more direct clerical involvement in financial and communal affairs.
      
  4. Both scholars contributed to revitalizing ijtihad, advancing discussions on taqlid (emulation) and criteria for the most knowledgeable jurist (aʿlam), which had lasting effects on Shia jurisprudence, including issues related to money arising from zakat and khums.

Conclusion:
The School of Hilla marked a pivotal turning point in the evolution of Shia charitable practices. By examining theological, jurisprudential, and political perspectives on Zakat and Khums, particularly in the context of Shia engagement with Mongol rule and internal scholarly debates, this study underscores the enduring principles that continue to shape Shia philanthropy. The contrasting views of Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ḥillī and Al-Allāmah al-Ḥillī on the state’s role in Zakat collection illustrate the intellectual dynamism of this school and its lasting influence on Shia jurisprudence. The paper highlights how external political changes and internal jurisprudential advancements shaped Shia charitable structures, influencing contemporary debates on the authority of shia jurists in managing religious funds and their relationship with the state.