BPJS and Zakat: The Dilemma of the Mustahik's Life

Imagine a case. A housewife who needs medical treatment must choose: pay the BPJS Kesehatan premium or buy rice so her child does not go hungry. What should be a simple choice has now become a dilemma. It is at this point that the discourse on the use of zakat by the National Amil Zakat Agency (BAZNAS) to pay BPJS Kesehatan premiums for poor communities—particularly deciles 1 to 3—has sparked debate. In classical fiqh literature, zakat is understood as a direct transfer of ownership (tamlik) to the mustahik. The majority of scholars from the Shafi’i, Hanafi, and Hanbali schools emphasise that the mustahik must become the rightful owner of the zakat assets. In this context, paying BPJS premiums through a third party is seen as not fulfilling the tamlik requirement, because ownership does not transfer directly. However, social realities often transcend textual constructs. Data from the Central Statistics Agency (BPS) shows that Indonesia’s poverty rate in September 2025 stands at 8.25 per cent, or around 23.36 million people. This figure remains significant, especially when looking at the disparity between rural areas (10.72 per cent) and urban areas (6.60 per cent). Furthermore, the fact that healthcare costs often give rise to new poverty. In such situations, zakat is confronted with a fundamental question: is it merely about maintaining the form of distribution, or does it serve as a real answer to the mustahik’s life?