<![CDATA[This study develops the concept of isqāṭ wājib al-dawlah, the discharge of the state's obligation, from an incidental argument into a doctrinal test for assessing when the transfer of a state fiscal burden onto zakat funds is invalid under Islamic law and when zakat involvement remains legitimate. The research employs a normative and doctrinal legal method combined with policy discourse analysis, deriving the boundary between the state's obligation (wājib al-dawlah) and the entitlement of the eight categories of recipients (ḥaqq al-asnāf) from the classical theory of the treasury (bayt al-māl) and the ruler's position as trustee. From this boundary it formulates a cumulative criterion of four conditions, namely obligational locus, entitlement, ownership transfer, and designational conformity, and tests it against four Indonesian cases: the Free Nutritious Meals Program (Makan Bergizi Gratis/MBG), clean water and sanitation provision, educational scholarships, and public infrastructure financing. The findings show that the debate over zakat in state programs cannot be resolved through recipient eligibility or the magnitude of benefit alone, but requires a third structural axis of fiscal designation. Applying the criterion produces a graded pattern in which two cases are invalid, one conditional, and one valid, demonstrating that the criterion discriminates among schemes rather than prohibiting them categorically. The study concludes that Indonesia's recurring proposals to enlist zakat as a budgetary substitute reflect a systematic conflation of two shar'ī distinct fiscal domains, and it offers zakat authorities and policymakers a transferable instrument that reframes zakat governance around fiscal designation rather than recipient eligibility.]]>
