Correcting the Direction of Zakat Nishab Regulation

Ramadan has always brought extraordinary spiritual enthusiasm to Muslims in Indonesia. During this month, mosques are crowded and people extend their hands more broadly through various forms of worship, including zakat (almsgiving). Ramadan is not merely a moment of spiritual purification but also the peak of Islamic philanthropic circulation that drives the economic wheel of the community. Through zakat, there is a process of asset and wealth distribution from those with sufficient means (muzakki) to those in need (mustahik), which in turn maintains purchasing power and social stability at grassroots level.

However, amidst the devotion of Muslims performing this obligation, a serious discourse has emerged in society. This began with the issuance of a Decision Letter (SK) from the Head of Baznas Number 15 of 2026 regarding the Value of Zakat Nishab for Income and Services for 2026, which regulated new policy regarding the reduction of the gold standard for zakat nishab to only 14 carats. It is important to note that this article does not intend to enter the realm of Islamic jurisprudence or religious law debate regarding the validity of such gold carats according to Islamic law. The focus of this article is entirely based on the construction of legal science and how the Zakat Management Law regulates regulatory governance in Indonesia, with the clear aim of ensuring that the spirit of worship and high economic distribution in this Ramadan month remains sheltered by solid legal certainty.

Indonesia is a constitutional state (rechtsstaat), not a religious state. The consequence of this principle is that every public policy must emerge from a valid procedure and competent authority. However, in the context of zakat, Indonesia faces a serious challenge in the form of disorderliness in the regulatory ecosystem, which is generally divided into two major problems.

First, based on various research results, the largest number of regional regulations (perda) in Indonesia are those regulating zakat. This phenomenon not only triggers legal disharmony because of the many regulations that are not synchronised between one region and another but also implies the use of perda as a tool to coerce zakat collection in regions. This often blurs the nature of zakat as voluntary worship managed by the state into something resembling a coercive and rigid administrative obligation.

Second, there is a fundamental problem at the central level where many mandates from the Zakat Management Law to the Minister of Religion (menag) to form derivative regulations have yet to be implemented. This regulatory vacuum created by the ministry provides a gap that is then filled by regulations issued independently by Baznas. Yet according to the hierarchy of laws, Baznas does not have attributive authority to replace the role of the minister in establishing regulations of a public nature (regeling).

According to Law Number 23 of 2011 concerning Zakat Management, Article 4 Paragraph (5) contains a very specific mandate: “Further provisions regarding the conditions and procedures for calculating zakat mal and zakat fitrah as referred to in paragraph (4) shall be regulated by Ministerial Regulation.” The law’s mandate places the minister of religion as the regulatory authority. To date, the minister of religion has fulfilled this mandate through Ministerial Regulation Number 52 of 2014, subsequently amended through Ministerial Regulation Number 69 of 2015, and most recently updated through Ministerial Regulation Number 31 of 2019.

The stipulation regarding nishab should stop and be sourced from this legal instrument. The problem is that in the ministerial regulation, the interpretation of gold carats is not explained in detail, creating a grey area. However, thus far, Zakat Collection Institutions (LAZ) have conducted interpretations of this technical vacuum through their respective Sharia Supervisory Boards (DPS). This space for organisational ijtihad (legal reasoning) is legally valid as long as it does not contradict the norms above it. The sudden appearance of the Baznas decision establishing a 14-carat standard actually intervenes in a space that should be regulated by the ministry or decided autonomously by the DPS of the managing institutions.

There is an administrative irregularity in the Baznas Head’s decision. In the “Considering” section, it mentions “Results of Coordination Meeting between Baznas, the Ministry of Religion, and the Indonesian Council of Islamic Scholars”. If this policy is indeed the result of coordination involving the ministry, a fundamental question arises: why is the legal product in the form of a decision letter from the Baznas Head rather than a Decision Letter from the Directorate General of Islamic Community Guidance?

According to legal science, inter-agency coordination should result in strengthening regulation at the ministry level so that it has national binding force. Using the instrument of a Baznas decision letter to regulate matters of a public nature is a clear form of overlapping authority. The potential danger becomes more apparent in the Baznas Head’s decision in the “Deciding” section point six, which states that income zakat shall be paid and “be paid through official zakat administrators.”

This formulation contains coercive force that indirectly compels LAZ to comply with this decision. Yet, as an internal legal product, a Baznas decision letter should only be binding exclusively upon the Central Baznas and Regional Baznas, not LAZ. As fellow operators, Baznas does not have the mandate to regulate the technical steps of LAZ through its internal decision letters.

As a constitutional state, the process of formulating public policy must be conducted with good regulatory practice. A good policy is measured not only by its substance, which aims to enhance asset distribution, but also by the legitimacy of its formation procedure. If authorities want to create policies with far-reaching impact for the community, the legal basis must also be placed on the appropriate instrument according to procedure. We must draw a clear line: Baznas decision letters do not apply and do not bind LAZ. Both Baznas and LAZ in Indonesia’s zakat ecosystem are fellow zakat operators.