Governing digital zakat for inclusive social protection: a comparative legal framework for Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan

Purpose This paper aims to identify the legal conditions under which digital zakat can support inclusive social protection while preserving religious authority and the restricted purpose of zakat funds. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses functional comparative legal analysis of selected legislation, judicial decisions and regulatory materials from Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan. It compares authorization, collection, custody, eligibility, data processing and remedies. Scholarly evidence informs the assessment of welfare implications. The legal cutoff is 31 August 2026. Findings The jurisdictions combine religious authority, financial administration and public oversight differently. Malaysia illustrates state-based authority; Indonesia combines national coordination with community institutions; Pakistan combines provincial administration with centrally coordinated bank deduction. Protection can become incomplete when funds, information or decisions move between institutions. Seven regulatory pillars connect the identified gaps to responsible bodies, implementation instruments and measurable indicators. Research limitations/implications The study is document based. It does not establish institutional compliance, technical performance or causal welfare effects. Its proposed safeguards require stakeholder and operational testing. Practical implications Practical implications: Legislatures, zakat authorities, banks and financial-technology providers can use the framework to draft rules, procurement terms and supervisory indicators. Social implications Social implications: Better law can help convert religious transfers into timely relief, livelihood support and accountable pathways out of poverty without turning recipients into data subjects with fewer rights. Originality/value The contribution is a comparative method for allocating responsibility across the digital zakat process. It distinguishes existing legal duties from adaptable institutional practices and reforms requiring legislation, rather than treating established safeguards as individually novel.