Preserving the Meaning of ZISWAF Amid the Logic of Integration

Lately, Zakat, Infak, Sedekah, and Wakaf (ZISWAF) have increasingly been referred to as “community funds” that can be integrated into a single management system. This narrative sounds promising, efficient, with greater scale and potential for broad impact.

However, there is one fundamental question that needs to be asked: since when has the syariah trust been viewed as merely funds? This question is important because the way we name something determines how we treat it.

Perhaps when ZISWAF is framed as “Islamic Social Finance” or “Islamic social funds,” it gradually enters the financial logic, as resources that can be collected, optimised, and distributed. This language facilitates integration into development frameworks. But at the same time, it risks reducing its meaning.

Zakat, in Islamic teachings, is not merely an economic distribution instrument. The Qur’an states: “Take zakat from some of their wealth, with which you purify and cleanse them…” (QS. At-Taubah: 103). Here, zakat functions as tazkiyah, the purification of soul and wealth. It is an act of worship, not just a fiscal mechanism.

Wakaf also has a distinctive character. It is not merely a flexibly managed social asset, but a trust bound to the waqif’s intention. The principle of preserving the principal and flowing the benefits makes wakaf an instrument of sustainability that does not fully submit to short-term economic logic.

Islamic history shows that zakat was once managed by the state. However, the state in that context was not merely an administrator, but an implementer of syariah. Zakat management was not driven by fiscal needs, but by religious obligations and efforts to uphold social justice. Zakat was not positioned as “state resources,” but as a trust that must be fulfilled.

In the Indonesian context, ZISWAF management is now developing in a relatively balanced model, with all its dynamics: there is the government’s role through the National Zakat Amil Agency (BAZNAS) and the Indonesian Waqf Board (BWI), alongside space for civil society through zakat amil institutions (LAZ) and waqf nazhir (individuals and organisations). If implemented well, this model can reflect a combination of legitimacy and participation, regulation and trust.

Amid this ecosystem, the discourse on integrating “community funds” needs to be read carefully. If integration is understood as strengthening coordination, data integration, and programme synergy, then it can enhance impact. But if integration is understood as centralisation and consolidation of funds under one main control, then several risks arise.

First, the blurring of ownership boundaries. ZISWAF is not the government’s property, but a syariah trust with clear provisions. Second, the shift in authority. From amil and nazhir working within fiqh frameworks, to more bureaucratic structures.

Third, changes in orientation. From blessings and distributive justice, to efficiency that could “fall into” purely quantitative measures. Fourth, the loss of diversity. Whereas ZISWAF practices historically grew from closeness to communities and local contexts.

In this context, it is important to distinguish between the state and the government. The state has a mandate to safeguard public trusts, including ensuring that ZISWAF governance runs according to syariah principles and the interests of the ummah.

However, the government, as a temporary entity, is not always free from short-term interests and pragmatic policy logic. When this boundary becomes blurred, there is a risk that ZISWAF is no longer positioned as a trust safeguarded by the state, but as resources managed within the government’s policy framework.

More fundamentally, the state’s presence in ZISWAF management needs to be placed within a constitutional framework. The 1945 Constitution guarantees the freedom of every citizen to profess their religion and to worship according to their religion (Article 29 paragraph 2), as well as the freedom to hold beliefs and to perform worship according to their convictions (Article 28E paragraph 1). In this perspective, zakat, infak, sedekah, and wakaf are not merely social activities, but part of worship practices protected by the constitution.

Thus, the state’s role through the government should be more emphasised on facilitation and protection functions, ensuring trustworthy, transparent governance in accordance with syariah principles; not as a party positioning it merely as resources that can be managed within a policy framework. At this point, what needs to be preserved is not only the effectiveness of management, but also the accuracy of the perspective.

ZISWAF is not merely “social funds.” It is a syariah-based justice distribution system that integrates dimensions of worship, law, social, and economy simultaneously. Reducing it to merely a financial instrument means ignoring part of its essence.

The government still has an important role as a regulator and facilitator. However, that role must be carried out with the principle of prudence: strengthening without taking over, integrating without uniforming, and optimising without reducing.

Ultimately, this is not merely about institutions, but about the meaning of keeping ZISWAF as worship, trust, and a path to justice, not just funds that are managed.

Amid the push to integrate and optimise, we need to ask: are we building a stronger system, or are we actually shifting the underlying perspective? Let us not, in the effort to enlarge the impact of ZISWAF, unconsciously diminish its meaning.