Radd al-Mazalim: Restoring Others’ Financial Rights
A Twelver Shia guide to Radd al-Mazalim: seeking owners first, authorised restitution, and its difference from charity.
This Twelver Shia guide summarises rulings published by the Office of Ayatollah al-Sistani. Details depend on your own marja and circumstances; it is not a personal fatwa.
In this guide
What Radd al-Mazalim addresses
Radd al-Mazalim concerns an unresolved financial right belonging to another person. In the Office of Ayatollah al-Sistani’s rulings, it means giving to an eligible poor person on behalf of the real creditor when that creditor or the heirs cannot be identified or reached. [1][2]
Its purpose is not general generosity but clearing a particular right. A known debt to an unknown creditor and property with an unknown owner are related, but not identical cases. [1][2]
Seek the rightful person first
Ruling 929 requires searching for the creditor, or heirs where relevant, when identification remains reasonably possible. Ruling 930 treats a known, limited group of possible creditors differently. Uncertainty or difficulty alone does not turn a known right into Radd al-Mazalim. [1]
As practical advice, keep the amount, dates, names, contact attempts, and evidence together. This helps frame a precise question to the marja’s office; it does not determine what search is sufficient. [1]
Unknown-owner property is different
Rulings 1454–1461 distinguish property whose owner is unknown. If it is not at risk of loss, it should not ordinarily be taken or controlled. Unauthorized taking carries the ruling of usurpation and liability unless the owner’s consent or abandonment is known. [2]
If the property is at risk, those rulings allow safekeeping. Search continues while finding the owner remains possible. Once hope ends, charity on the owner’s behalf is described, using the property, proceeds, or assessed value. As an obligatory precaution, disposal, sale, self-taking against value, and valuation require religious-authority permission. [2]
Permission and the eligible recipient
For an unknown creditor among an unconfined group after hope of finding the person ends, ruling 930 directs giving the debt as Radd al-Mazalim on behalf of the real creditor. As an obligatory precaution, it requires permission from the religious authority or representative. [1][2][3]
Under rulings 931–939, the recipient is an eligible poor Muslim and specifically a Twelver Shia. It cannot be given to a person whose maintenance is obligatory for the payer. A non-poor religious place or event does not fulfil this duty. Ask your own marja about authorization and recipient details. [1][2][3]
Not ordinary charity, khums, or zakat
Ordinary charity may be a voluntary gift for a good cause. Radd al-Mazalim is instead given on behalf of an unknown person whose financial right remains unresolved. A gift reaching someone in need does not itself settle that specific right. [4]
Khums and zakat have their own causes, permissions, recipients, and rules. Ruling 1337 says Radd al-Mazalim, khums, zakat, kaffarah, and similar funds must each meet their own conditions. Do not relabel one payment or assume it discharges several duties without guidance. [4]
Plan carefully and keep the case open
The Sistani rulings say, as an obligatory precaution, that liability can remain if the creditor or owner later appears and does not accept the charity given on that person’s behalf. A real effort to identify and reach the right holder therefore matters first. [1][2][3]
Before acting, prepare the facts: the right involved, why its holder cannot be found, the search undertaken, and how the amount was reached. A general guide or money transfer alone cannot confirm discharge of a personal duty. Obtain your own marja’s response for the case. [1][2][3]
Sources
- Office of Ayatollah al-Sistani — Unknown creditor, rulings 929–930
- Office of Ayatollah al-Sistani — Unknown-owner property, rulings 1454–1461
- Office of Ayatollah al-Sistani — Radd al-Mazalim recipients, rulings 931–939
- Office of Ayatollah al-Sistani — Conditions for separately titled funds, ruling 1337