Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > Zakat al-fitr > The insane, the fetus, deadlines and transfer
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
This third part of the rules of zakat al-fitr brings together eight sheets of the legal encyclopedia. It addresses the zakat owed for the insane person and for the fetus, the time at which the zakat becomes obligatory, the permissibility of paying it before that time or delaying it after it, the place of payment when the payer and the person on whose behalf it is paid reside in different towns, and finally the transfer of zakat al-fitr to another country while entitled recipients live in the country of obligation. Each question sets out the opinions of the schools and their evidence drawn from the Quran, the Sunna and legal reasoning.
The majority of scholars hold that zakat al-fitr is obligatory for the insane person from his wealth if he has any; if he has none, his guardian pays it on his behalf from his own wealth, whether the madness arose after puberty or before it (al-Mabsut 3/104, al-Jawhara al-Nira 2/5, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/363, Mawahib al-Jalil 3/260, al-Mughni 4/310, al-Majmu 5/294).
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (al-Shaybani), among the Hanafis, however distinguishes between madness occurring after puberty and madness preceding it: one who reaches puberty while already insane makes it binding on his guardian to pay zakat al-fitr for him, whereas one who reaches puberty sound of mind and then becomes insane imposes nothing of the kind on his guardian, since guardianship lapsed with puberty, even should it return out of necessity.
Imam as-Sarakhsi (may Allah have mercy on him) said : the mentally deficient and the insane occupy in this respect the position of the minor. It is also reported from Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him) that the father pays the zakat for his son who is mentally deficient or insane when the latter reaches puberty in that state; but if he reaches it sound of mind and then becomes insane, the father is no longer obliged to pay it either from the son's wealth or from his own: when the child is born insane, what was obligatory persists through the continuation of guardianship; when he reaches puberty sound of mind, guardianship disappears and does not return afterwards even should it be reinstated out of necessity (al-Mabsut 3/104).
The majority of the people of knowledge grounded the obligation of zakat al-fitr for the insane person on the hadith of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both):
"The Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered zakat al-fitr for the young and the old, the free man and the slave, among those you feed."authentic hadith, cited earlier
The point of the reasoning is that the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded the one who feeds another to pay it on his behalf; the insane person is fed by his guardian, who must therefore pay zakat al-fitr for him from his wealth if he has any, and from the guardian's wealth otherwise. The reasoning moreover proceeds by analogy of the insane person to the minor, both being united by the obligation of maintenance: if zakat al-fitr is obligatory for the minor, it is likewise obligatory for the insane person.
As for Muhammad ibn al-Hasan's evidence for non-obligation when the madness occurs after puberty, it rests on the fact that zakat al-fitr becomes obligatory only together with capacity and guardianship; the insane person whose madness came after puberty saw his guardianship lapse with it, and the guardian having no guardianship over him, zakat al-fitr is no longer imposed, even should guardianship return out of necessity (al-Mabsut 3/104, al-Jawhara al-Nira 2/5, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/363).
The fetus is what is concealed in its mother's womb: if it comes into the world alive, it is a child; if it comes out dead, it is a miscarriage (al-Multaqa ala Abwab al-Muqni 1/138).
The scholars differed over zakat al-fitr for the fetus in two opinions. The first opinion: zakat al-fitr is not obligatory for the fetus; this is the view of most of the people of knowledge (Umdat al-Qari 9/110, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/361, al-Dhakhira 3/157, al-Majmu 6/119, Tarh al-Tathrib 4/57, al-Mughni 4/64, Sharh al-Zarkashi 1/409, al-Furu 2/400, al-Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/388, al-Insaf 3/168). Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the fitra of the fetus is due neither from its father nor from its wealth, without disagreement among us.
Ibn al-Mundhir noted the transmission of consensus on this point: "All those whose knowledge is preserved among the scholars of the various lands do not impose a fitra for the fetus" (al-Majmu 6/119). Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the doctrine is that the fitra is not obligatory for the fetus; this is the view of most of the people of knowledge, as Ibn al-Mundhir reported: all those whose knowledge we preserve among the scholars of the various lands do not impose on a man the zakat al-fitr for the fetus in its mother's womb (al-Mughni 4/64, see al-Ijma 111).
They grounded this opinion on consensus and rational argument. As for consensus, Ibn al-Mundhir said: they agreed that no zakat is due for the fetus in its mother's womb, Ahmad ibn Hanbal having alone differed in liking it without making it obligatory (al-Ijma 111). Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Malik's view did not differ on the fact that one to whom a child is born after the day of breaking the fast owes nothing for it, and this is a consensus of him and of all the scholars (al-Tamhid 14/327, see Tarh al-Tathrib 4/57).
As for the rational argument, it proceeds in three ways:
The second opinion: zakat al-fitr is obligatory for the fetus; this is a narration reported from Imam Ahmad (al-Mughni 4/64, al-Furu 2/400, al-Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/388, al-Insaf 3/186, Sharh al-Zarkashi 1/409, Tarh al-Tathrib 4/57). Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: another narration from Ahmad states that it is due from him (al-Mughni 4/64).
Its proponents grounded it on what is reported from Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him), who used to give the charity of breaking the fast for the young, the old and the fetus (Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musannaf 2/432, no 10737, from Humayd ibn Bakr and Qatada; Abdallah ibn Ahmad, al-Masa'il 1/170), and on the statement of Abu Qilaba: they liked to give zakat al-fitr for the young and the old, even for the fetus in its mother's womb (Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf 3/319, no 5788). It is added that the fetus is a human being for whom the bequest is valid and who inherits: it therefore falls under the generality of the reports, and zakat al-fitr is thereby imposed on it (al-Mughni 4/64).
Ibn Hazm followed this opinion; al-Hafiz al-Iraqi (may Allah have mercy on him) nevertheless showed its weakness. Ibn Hazm reasoned from the narration mentioning the "young" to establish the obligation of zakat al-fitr for the fetus in its mother's womb: the fetus falls under the name of the young; if it completes 120 days in its mother's womb before the break of dawn of the night of breaking the fast, the charity of breaking the fast must be paid for it. He then cited the established hadith of Ibn Mas'ud in the two Sahihs:
"The creation of every one of you is assembled in his mother's womb for forty days, then he becomes a clinging form like that, then a chewed lump like that, then an angel is sent... then He breathes into him the spirit."reported by al-Bukhari 3154 and Muslim 2643
Ibn Hazm concluded from it that the fetus is before that a dead thing, upon which no ruling bears; once alive, every ruling obligatory for the young becomes obligatory for it. Al-Iraqi then recalled the narration of Bakr ibn Abdallah al-Muzani and Qatada that Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) "used to give the charity of breaking the fast for the young and the old, even for the fetus in its mother's womb", and the statement of Abu Qilaba: "they liked to give zakat al-fitr for the young and the old, even for the fetus in its mother's womb". Sulayman ibn Yasar was asked about the fetus: is zakat paid for it? He answered in the affirmative; and no Companion is known to have contradicted Uthman on this.
The author's father (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his commentary on al-Tirmidhi: the argument invoked to establish the obligation of zakat al-fitr for the fetus in its mother's womb is utterly astonishing. As for the Prophet's statement (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "for the young and the old", no intelligent person understands from it anything but what exists in this world; as for the nonexistent, we know of no one who made it obligatory. As for the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, none knows what is in the womb except Allah, as He said:
"And He knows what is in the wombs."
Surah Luqman, 34
It may happen that a pregnancy is supposed while it is not one. Imam al-Haramayn said: there is no disagreement that the fetus is not known; the disagreement concerns treating it as known, in the sense that a share of inheritance is deferred for it in view of the possibility of its existence. The scholars likewise did not differ that the fetus owns nothing in its mother's womb and that no ruling is passed on the nonexistent until its existence appears.
As for what is reported from Uthman and others, it is no proof: the report of Uthman is discontinuous, for the narration of Bakr and Qatada from Uthman is mursal; the astonishing thing is that mawquf reports are not used as evidence even if they were sound and connected. As for Abu Qilaba's report: who then were "those whom it pleased"? Even had he named a group of Companions, that would not have constituted proof. As for Sulayman ibn Yasar, it is not established from him, for it comes from a man who was not named: no disagreement of any scholar is established in it. Abu Qilaba's statement "they liked it" rather clearly indicates non-obligation. Whoever volunteers a charity for a fetus hoping for its preservation and safety commits no wrong. The agreement on non-obligation was moreover transmitted before Ibn Hazm's dissent: Ibn al-Mundhir reported that all those whose knowledge is preserved among the scholars of the various lands mentioned that the payment of zakat al-fitr for the fetus in its mother's womb is not required of a man. Among those from whom this is preserved: Ata ibn Abi Rabah, Malik, Abu Thawr and the partisans of opinion; Ahmad ibn Hanbal liked it without making it obligatory, and no contradiction of our statement is soundly established from Uthman.
Another narration from Ahmad ibn Hanbal states the obligation of paying it for the fetus. Ibn Abd al-Barr said in al-Tamhid, regarding one to whom a child is born after the day of breaking the fast: Malik's view did not differ that he owes nothing for it, and this is a consensus of him and of all the scholars. He then indicated that what is reported from Malik and others about payment for one born during the remainder of the day of breaking the fast is carried on recommendation; likewise what he transmitted from al-Layth, namely that the father owes zakat al-fitr for a child born after the prayer of breaking the fast. He said: I like that for the Christian who embraces Islam at that moment, without considering it obligatory for him. His father (may Allah have mercy on him) said: al-Layth declared its non-obligation explicitly there; were it said to be obligatory, it would not be far-fetched, for the time of its payment extends to the end of the day of breaking the fast, by analogy with the prayer whose time may still be caught. Then he said: even though Ibn Hazm contradicted the consensus by imposing it for the fetus, his discourse contradicts itself. He said indeed: the young owes his father no zakat al-fitr unless he possesses wealth, in which case it is paid from his wealth; if he possesses no wealth, it is not required of the father then or afterwards. How then does he not impose its zakat on the father while the child is alive and existing, and impose it while it is nonexistent? If you say his words bear on the case where the fetus possesses wealth, we answer: how could it possess wealth when transfer of ownership to it is not valid? Were the one whom the fetus would inherit to die, we would not take possession on its behalf; it is a fetus and cannot be described as an owner until it is born. The same applies to maintenance: the sound view is that it is due to the pregnant mother, not to the fetus; were it due to the fetus it would lapse with the passage of time like the maintenance of a relative, and it does not lapse. Thus far the words of his father (may Allah have mercy on him) (Tarh al-Tathrib 4/57-59).
The scholars do not disagree that zakat al-fitr becomes obligatory at the end of Ramadan, according to the hadith of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) "made zakat al-fitr obligatory from Ramadan" (authentic hadith, cited earlier). They did however differ over the precise determination of the time, in two opinions. The cause of the disagreement is whether this charity is an act of worship tied to the day of Eid or to the exit of the month of Ramadan, the night of Eid not being part of the month of Ramadan (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/389).
The first opinion: zakat al-fitr becomes obligatory at the sunset of the last day of the month of Ramadan; this is the sound view among the Shafi'is, Malik's view in the narration of Ashhab, and the doctrine of the Hanbalis (al-Muntaqa of al-Baji 2/190, al-Dhakhira 3/155, Mawahib al-Jalil 2/367, Bulghat al-Salik 1/435-436, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/389, al-Umm of al-Shafi'i 2/63, al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/361, al-Majmu 6/104-106, al-Ifsah 1/342, al-Mughni 4/48, Kashshaf al-Qina 2/251).
Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: concerning the time at which zakat al-fitr becomes obligatory, three famous opinions circulate along the two paths; the most authentic in their view is that it becomes obligatory at the sunset of the night of the Eid of breaking the fast, and this is the text of his later doctrine (al-Majmu 6/104). Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it becomes obligatory at the sunset of the night of breaking the fast; such is the sound view of the doctrine, transmitted by all from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), and most of his companions follow it (al-Insaf 3/176). Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Ashhab reported from Malik that the zakat becomes obligatory at the sunset of the last day of Ramadan, that is, the night of breaking the fast (al-Istidhkar 3/266, al-Tamhid 14/327).
They grounded this position on what Abdallah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) reported:
"The Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made zakat al-fitr obligatory as a purification for the faster from vain talk and indecency, and as food for the poor. Whoever pays it before the prayer, it is an accepted zakat; whoever pays it after the prayer, it is a charity among the charities."reported by Abu Dawud 1609, Ibn Majah 1827, al-Daraqutni (who said: nothing criticized is found in it), al-Hakim 1488 and al-Bayhaqi 7481; al-Albani judged its chain of transmission good, and Ibn Qudama and al-Nawawi graded it good
This hadith provides two indications. The first is his statement: "made zakat al-fitr obligatory": he reports that it is made obligatory by the breaking of the fast of Ramadan, for he attributed the zakat to the breaking of the fast; attribution implies specification, that is, a charity specified by the breaking of the fast, and the first breaking of the fast occurring for the whole of Ramadan is the sunset of its last day: the obligation is therefore tied to that moment. The second is his statement: "a purification for the faster": whoever has lived no moment of the time of fasting has no need of a purification from fasting (al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/361).
Abdallah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) also said: "The Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made zakat al-fitr obligatory from Ramadan: a sa' of dates or a sa' of barley, for every free man or slave, male or female, among the Muslims" (authentic hadith, cited earlier). This hadith indicates that the time of obligation is the sunset of the last day of Ramadan, in two ways: the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) indicates in it that the zakat becomes obligatory with the breaking of the fast of Ramadan, which occurs at the sunset of the last day; and he attributed the zakat to the breaking of the fast, and attribution implies specification and causation: the obligation is specified by the breaking of the fast of Ramadan, which occurs at the sunset of the last day and thereby constitutes the time of obligation.
It is added that zakat al-fitr either becomes obligatory at the exit of Ramadan and the entry of Shawwal at sunset, or at both causes together: attaching the zakat to the sunset is therefore more fitting. And what follows the sunset is no longer a time for fasting, just as what follows the rising of dawn.
The second opinion: the time at which zakat al-fitr becomes obligatory is the rising of dawn on the day of Eid; this is the view of the Hanafis, of Malik in the narration of Ibn al-Qasim, of al-Shafi'i in his earlier doctrine, and of Ahmad in one narration. Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for the time at which the charity of breaking the fast becomes obligatory, our companions said it is the moment of the rising of the second dawn of the day of breaking the fast (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74). Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: according to Ahmad, it becomes obligatory at the rising of dawn on the day of breaking the fast (al-Insaf 3/176).
They grounded this position on the hadith of Abdallah ibn Umar cited earlier: the charity is attributed in it to the breaking of the fast, and the attribution aims at specification, which belongs to the breaking of the fast of the day and not of the night; for the intended breaking of the fast is the one opposed to fasting, and it occurs in the day and not the night, fasting on the day of Eid being forbidden. And the breaking of the fast occurred every night of Ramadan without the obligation attaching to it, which proves that the intended breaking of the fast is the one opposed to fasting.
Abu Ubayd, the freedman of Ibn Azhar, said: I attended the Eid with Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) and he said: "These are two days which the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade fasting: the day on which you break your fast, and the other day on which you eat of your sacrifice." The point of the reasoning is that the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) indicated that the breaking of the fast occurs on the day of Eid; zakat al-fitr becoming obligatory with the breaking of the fast of Ramadan, its time of obligation is the rising of dawn on the day of Eid, the moment at which the breaking of the fast takes place.
The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said: "Enrich them from begging on this day" (weak hadith). This hadith contains the command to enrich the poor from begging on the day of Eid, whose beginning is the rising of dawn: it therefore proves that the time of obligation of zakat al-fitr is the rising of dawn on the day of Eid. Finally, zakat al-fitr is reasoned by analogy to the sacrificial animal, both being an offering tied to the day of Eid; the time of the sacrificial animal is tied to the day of Eid and not to its night: it follows that zakat al-fitr is tied to the day of Eid and not to its night, so that its time does not precede its day.
The scholars established by the Sunna that the recommended time for paying zakat al-fitr is after the rising of dawn and before the Eid prayer. Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) reported: "The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered that zakat al-fitr be paid before the people go out for the prayer" (al-Bukhari 1438, Muslim 986). This hadith contains the command to pay zakat al-fitr before the Eid prayer, and this command is a command of recommendation. Badr al-Din al-Ayni (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is a command of recommendation; such is the view of Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas, Ata ibn Abi Rabah, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, al-Qasim, Abu Nadra, Ikrima, al-Dahhak, al-Hakam ibn Uyayna, Musa ibn Wardan, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq and the people of Kufa; no disagreement is reported on it, and al-Khattabi even transmitted consensus on it (Umdat al-Qari 9/111). Zayn al-Din al-Iraqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: his statement "he ordered that it be paid before the people go out for the prayer" means that it is preferable to pay it before going out for the prayer, and the jurists of the four schools stated it explicitly (Tarh al-Tathrib 4/59).
As for the legal status of payment before the time of obligation, the jurists agree on the permissibility of paying it one or two days before the Eid, according to the hadith of Abdallah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): "The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made the zakat of breaking the fast obligatory, or he said: of Ramadan, for the male and the female, the free man and the slave: a sa' of dates or a sa' of barley, which the people equated with half a sa' of wheat. Ibn Umar used to give dates; the people of Medina ran short of dates, so he gave barley. He used to give for the young and the old, to the point of giving for his own children, and he gave it to those who accepted it. And they used to give it one or two days before the breaking of the fast" (authentic hadith, cited earlier). This statement counts as an indication concerning all of them, that is, the Companions, which amounts to a consensus; for such an advancement does not defeat the purpose of this charity: it apparently remains, at least in part, until the day of Eid, whereby one is dispensed from the rounds and begging on that day. It is added that it is a zakat whose advancement before its obligation is permitted, like the zakat of wealth (Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/442). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is also indicated by what al-Bukhari reported in the chapter on delegation and elsewhere from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) charged me with guarding the zakat of Ramadan", a hadith in which the devil was detained for three nights while he was taking from the dates: proof that they were in the habit of hastening this charity (Fath al-Bari 3/376-377).
The jurists differed beyond the day and the two days in four opinions:
Its proponents grounded the prohibition of advancing zakat al-fitr more than two days before the day of Eid on the Sunna and on rational argument. As for the Sunna, the first is the hadith of Nafi from Abdallah ibn Umar cited earlier, whose proof lies in Ibn Umar's statement: "they used to give it one or two days before the breaking of the fast": an indication concerning all the Companions, hence a consensus; he stated explicitly that they gave it one or two days before the breaking of the fast, so that beyond that it is not permitted. Then comes the Prophet's statement (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Enrich them from begging on this day" (weak hadith): the command carries obligation; if it is advanced by a long time, the enrichment on the day of Eid does not take place. As for the rational argument, zakat al-fitr was legislated to fill the need of the destitute and enrich them from begging on the day of Eid; advancing it by a short time, such as a day or two, does not defeat this purpose, but advancing it beyond a long time prevents this enrichment on that day (al-Mughni 4/51).
The second opinion: it is permitted to advance zakat al-fitr from the beginning of Ramadan; this is the sound view among the Shafi'is, a view of the Hanafis and a view of the Hanbalis (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74, al-Jawhara al-Nira 2/12, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/367, Tarh al-Tathrib 4/60, al-Majmu 6/121). Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is permitted among us to advance the fitra throughout Ramadan, not before; this is the view of the doctrine (al-Majmu 6/121).
Its proponents grounded it on rational argument, in three ways. The first: zakat al-fitr is a financial right made obligatory for two causes, the fasting of Ramadan and the breaking of that fast; it may be advanced in relation to one of them, the breaking of the fast, but not in relation to both together, as with the zakat of wealth, which may be advanced after acquiring the nisab before the year. Advancing zakat al-fitr from the beginning of Ramadan is therefore permitted, since one of the two causes, the fasting, has already occurred; before that it is not permitted, for it would be an advancement over both causes together, like paying the zakat of wealth before the year and the nisab (Tarh al-Tathrib 4/60, al-Majmu 7/209). The second is the analogy of advancement from the beginning of Ramadan to advancement by a day or two, both being payment during part of Ramadan; advancement by a day or two is licit by consensus, so likewise is advancement from the beginning of Ramadan (Tarh al-Tathrib 4/60). The third is that the zakat is the breaking of the fast: it cannot be advanced before the time of fasting, but may be after it (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74).
The third opinion: the advancement of zakat al-fitr is permitted without limit, a year, two or more; this is the sound view among the Hanafis (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74, al-Jawhara al-Nira 2/12, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 2/275, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/367, Tarh al-Tathrib 4/60). Imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: al-Hasan reported from Abu Hanifa that hastening it by a year or two is permitted; the sound view is that hastening is permitted without limit, and the mention of the year and the two years in al-Hasan's narration is not a determination but an indication of the length of the duration, that is, it is permitted even should the duration be long, as in the word of Allah:
"If you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them."
Surah al-Tawba, 80
(Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74). Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) favored this opinion: when the question contains two verified opinions, the mufti chooses for the fatwa the one of the two which he conforms his action to, unless one is stronger, by virtue of representing the apparent view of the narration, or of the authors of the texts and commentaries following it, or most of the masters; all these preferential considerations gather here for the unrestricted opinion, so one does not depart from it (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin on al-Dar al-Mukhtar 2/367). The Hanafis grounded this permissibility on the Sunna and on rational argument. As for the Sunna, it is the hadith of Nafi from Abdallah ibn Umar cited earlier (authentic hadith, cited earlier): the statement "they used to give it before the breaking of the fast" is unrestricted and encompasses advancement during Ramadan and before it (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 2/275). As for the rational argument, it proceeds in two ways: the analogy of zakat al-fitr to the zakat of wealth, both being a right of Allah the Exalted, the advancement of the zakat of wealth being permitted after complete possession of the nisab before the lapse of the year; and the fact that hastening after the cause has occurred is licit, the cause of the obligation of zakat al-fitr already existing, namely a person one feeds and whose upkeep one bears: hastening is therefore permitted without limit, with no difference between one duration and another (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74).
The fourth opinion: the advancement of zakat al-fitr before its time of obligation is not permitted at all; this is a narration of the Malikis, the view of al-Hasan ibn Ziyad among the Hanafis and that of Ibn Hazm al-Zahiri (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74, al-Mabsut 3/110, al-Muntaqa of al-Baji 2/190, al-Muhalla 6/143). Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is not permitted to advance it before its time at all (al-Muhalla 6/143). Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) reported that al-Hasan ibn Ziyad said: it is not permitted to hasten it at all (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74).
Its proponents grounded their doctrine, the prohibition of advancing the payment of zakat al-fitr before its time of obligation, on the Sunna and on rational argument. As for the Sunna, the first argument is the hadith of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): "the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered that zakat al-fitr be paid before the people go out for the prayer" (authentic hadith, cited earlier); this hadith contains the command to pay the zakat before the people go out for the Eid prayer, and the command carries obligation so long as no contrary indication is found, and there is none here: it follows that payment before going out for the Eid prayer is obligatory and that nothing before it is permitted, for paying the obligatory before its time of obligation is not permitted (al-Muhalla 6/143). The second argument is the statement reported from the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Enrich them from begging on this day" (weak hadith); this hadith contains the command to enrich the poor on the day of Eid, and the command carries obligation: payment advanced before that day misses the commanded enrichment and is not permitted. As for the rational argument, it proceeds in two ways: the advancement of the payment of zakat al-fitr before the day of Eid is a payment before its obligation, and paying the obligatory before its time of obligation is not permitted; and this advancement misses the commanded enrichment on the day of Eid. Finally comes the analogy of zakat al-fitr to the sacrificial animal, both being tied to the day of Eid: just as it is not permitted to slaughter the sacrificial animal before the day of sacrifice, so zakat al-fitr cannot be advanced before the day of breaking the fast.
The people of knowledge differed over the legal status of delaying the payment of zakat al-fitr in three opinions.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: these two hadiths imply that it is not permitted to delay it after the Eid prayer and that it lapses once the prayer is finished; this is the correct view, for nothing contradicts these two hadiths, neither abrogating nor a consensus averting their meaning; and our master upheld it and stated it explicitly (Zad al-Ma'ad 2/21-22). Imam al-Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: his statement "it is a charity among the charities" designates that given outside the prescribed times, whose acceptance remains subject to the will of Allah the Exalted; it appears that whoever pays the fitra after the Eid prayer is like one who did not pay it, both sharing in the neglect of this obligatory charity (Nayl al-Awtar 4/256).
The second opinion: it is permitted to delay the payment of zakat al-fitr after the Eid prayer and to pay it during the day of Eid, while delaying it beyond that is forbidden; this is the view of the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the doctrine, and of Ibn al-Humam among the Hanafis (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin on al-Dar al-Mukhtar 2/359, al-Dhakhira 3/158, Bulghat al-Salik 1/349, Sharh al-Zarqani on the Muwatta of Malik 2/202, al-Majmu 6/105-106, al-Mughni 4/46, Sharh al-Zarkashi 1/405, al-Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/364, Matalib Uli al-Nuhha 2/110, Nayl al-Awtar 4/256, al-Insaf 3/178).
Al-Qarafi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Sand said: he does not sin by delaying it so long as the day of breaking the fast lasts; if he delays it beyond that, he sins, if able; this is the view of al-Shafi'i and Ibn Hanbal (al-Dhakhira 3/158). Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: his statement "it is permitted during the rest of the day" expresses the doctrine followed by the companions, and many of them affirmed it decisively. He then noted: the author's statement "it is permitted during the rest of the day" may mean permissibility without dislike, which is remote and is one of the two views chosen by the qadi, or permissibility with dislike, the second view, which is the correct one. In al-Kafi and al-Majd's commentary on it, it is stated that he left the choice aside; and in al-Furu: the view of dislike is the most apparent (al-Insaf 3/178). Al-Buhuti (may Allah have mercy on him) said: whoever delays it beyond it, that is, beyond the day of Eid, sins, for it is permitted throughout that day; the rest of the day, that is, after the prayer, is disliked out of caution regarding the disagreement over its prohibition (Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/442). Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he delays it after the day of Eid, he sins and making it up is required of him (al-Mughni 4/46). Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the texts of al-Shafi'i and his companions agree that it is preferable to pay it on the day of Eid before going out for the Eid prayer, that it is permitted to pay it throughout the day of Eid, that it is not permitted to delay it after that day, and that if he delays it, he disobeys and making it up is required of him; they named "making up" the payment after the day of Eid (al-Majmu 6/105-106).
Its proponents, who constitute the majority, grounded their doctrine, the permissibility of delay after the Eid prayer and during the day of Eid and the prohibition of delay beyond, on the Sunna: the hadith of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): "the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered that zakat al-fitr be paid before the people go out for the prayer" (al-Bukhari 1438, Muslim 986), the hadith of Abdallah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "The Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made zakat al-fitr obligatory as a purification for the faster from vain talk and indecency, and as food for the poor. Whoever pays it before the prayer, it is an accepted zakat; whoever pays it after the prayer, it is a charity among the charities" (authentic hadith, cited earlier), and the Prophet's statement (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Enrich them from begging on this day" (weak hadith). These hadiths indicate the permissibility of paying zakat al-fitr on the day of Eid after the prayer, with dislike, and the prohibition of delaying its payment after the day of Eid. The permissibility rests on the Prophet's statement (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Enrich them from begging on this day", general for the whole day, so that it is permitted after the prayer as before it, the enrichment taking place on that very day, though he left aside what is preferable. The dislike of payment after the prayer rests on contravening the command to pay before the prayer, that command being carried on recommendation; delay after the prayer is nonetheless disliked out of caution regarding the disagreement over its prohibition. As for the prohibition of delaying payment after the day of breaking the fast, it rests on the fact that the hadiths contain the command to pay before the prayer and the command to enrich the poor on the day of Eid, and that delay after that day constitutes contravention of the command of payment and misses the commanded enrichment on the day of Eid: it is therefore proven that delay after the day of Eid is forbidden.
The third opinion: the delay of zakat al-fitr is permitted without limit; such is the doctrine of the Hanafis (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin with al-Dar al-Mukhtar 2/359, Umdat al-Qari 9/108, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 2/271). Imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for the time of its payment, it extends over the whole life according to most of our companions, and it does not lapse through delay after the day of breaking the fast (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74).
The majority of the Hanafis grounded this doctrine on rational argument, in two ways. The first is that the command to pay it is unrestricted as to time, so that it becomes obligatory at any unspecified time; it is specified only by an actual specification or by the end of one's life, like the command of the zakat: at whatever time one pays it, one is in a state of payment and not of making up, as with the other obligations of extended time (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/74).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for zakat al-fitr, it is distributed in the town where it became obligatory, whether his wealth is there or not; for the person is the cause of the obligation of the zakat, so it is distributed in the town where the cause is (al-Mughni 3/448). The jurists grounded payment at the place of the payer on what Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) reported: the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him) to Yemen and said to him:
"Call them to testify that there is no deity but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah. If they obey you in that, inform them that Allah has made five prayers obligatory upon them every day and night. If they obey you in that, inform them that Allah has made a charity obligatory upon them from their wealth, taken from their rich and rendered to their poor."reported by al-Bukhari 1331 and Muslim 19
The point of the reasoning is his statement: "taken from their rich and rendered to their poor": the pronoun in his statement "their poor" refers to the poor of the people of the land, and this is the most apparent view, for Mu'adh was sent to the people of Yemen; and the pronoun in his statement "their rich" also refers to the people of Yemen: the same applies to "their poor", so that the wording and the meaning remain coherent.
Regarding the place of payment of zakat al-fitr when the place of the payer differs from that of the one on whose behalf it is paid, the jurists differed in two opinions. The first opinion: zakat al-fitr is paid at the place of the one who pays it; this is the sound view among the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis, and one view of the Shafi'is (al-Mabsut 3/106, Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/75, al-Kafi 1/113, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/305, Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/704, Kashshaf al-Qina 2/252, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 2/269). Imam al-Zayla'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: for the charity of breaking the fast, it is his place that counts, not that of his minor children nor of his slaves, according to the sound view (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/305). Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is recommended for the traveler to pay it in the place where he is, for himself and for his dependents; if his dependents pay it on his behalf, it suffices him (al-Kafi fi fiqh ahl al-Madina 1/113). Imam al-Buhuti (may Allah have mercy on him) said: whoever owes the fitra of another, such as a wife, a slave or a relative, pays it in his own place (Kashshaf al-Qina 2/252, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/442). Al-Khatib al-Shirbini (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if his slave is in another town, the most correct view is that the town of the slave counts, since the charity initially falls upon the one who bears it; the second view, that the town of the master counts, is the weaker one (Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/407, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 3/133).
Its proponents grounded it on rational argument: the charity of breaking the fast attaches to the payer's legal liability, not to his wealth, to the point that if his wealth perishes, the charity does not lapse; the charity attaching to the payer's liability, it is the payer's place that counts, not that of the one on whose behalf it is paid (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/75, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/305).
The second opinion: the place of payment of zakat al-fitr, when the place of the payer differs from that of the one on whose behalf it is paid, is the place of the one on whose behalf it is paid; this is the sound view among the Shafi'is, and a view of the Hanafis and of the Hanbalis (Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/75, al-Mabsut 3/106, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 2/296, Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/407, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 3/123, al-Insaf 3/203). Ibn al-Humam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: for the zakat of wealth, the place of the wealth counts; for the charity of breaking the fast, the place of the person on whose behalf it is paid, according to the sound view, in observance of applying the ruling where its cause exists (Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/280, al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 2/269). Al-Khatib al-Shirbini (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if his slave is in another town, the most correct view is that the town of the slave counts, since the charity initially falls upon the one who bears it (Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/407).
Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it has also been said: one pays in a town on behalf of those for whom one must pay (al-Insaf 3/203). The proponents of this view grounded it on rational argument: the analogy of zakat al-fitr to the zakat of wealth, for it is one of the two kinds of zakat; the zakat of wealth is paid where the wealth is, and so it is with zakat al-fitr (al-Mabsut 3/106, Bada'i al-Sana'i 2/75).
The jurists agree on the permissibility of transferring the zakat from one town to another when it overflows and its inhabitants are self-sufficient, on account of the abundance of the zakat, the absence of some categories or their small number; they even said that the transfer then becomes obligatory. They differed however, in two opinions, on the status of transferring zakat al-fitr from the country of obligation to another country while its entitled recipients exist in the country of obligation.
The first opinion, that of the Hanafis: the transfer of the zakat from one town to another is disliked in a mild way, unless it is transferred to needy relatives, on account of the tie of kinship; or to a person or group poorer than the inhabitants of one's town; or if its transfer is more beneficial to the Muslims; or from the territory of war to the territory of Islam, for the poor of the Muslims are better and more worthy of support than the poor of the territory of war; or to a scholar or a student of knowledge, to aid him in his mission; or to someone more pious, more upright or more beneficial to the Muslims: in all these cases the transfer is not disliked (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin on al-Dar al-Mukhtar 2/353, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/280, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/190, al-Mabsut 3/106, Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/305, al-Hidaya, commentary on al-Bidaya 1/115).
Allah the Exalted said:
"Charities are only for the poor and the destitute..."
Surah al-Tawba, 60
This verse enumerates the categories to which the zakat is assigned without distinction between the inhabitants of one town and those of another: it is therefore unrestricted, not limited to a particular place. Abu Bakr al-Jassas (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the apparent meaning of the verse implies the permissibility of giving it outside the town where the wealth is, in any place one wishes; that is why our companions said: in any place where one pays it, it suffices; proof of it is that we know of no charity in the legal foundations specified by a place to the point that paying it elsewhere would be forbidden. Do you not see that the expiations of oaths and vows and other charities do not have their permissibility tied to one place rather than another? (Ahkam al-Quran 4/341). As for the dislike, it rests on the Prophet's statement (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when he sent Mu'adh to Yemen and said to him: "inform them that Allah has made a charity obligatory upon them from their wealth, taken from their rich and rendered to their poor" (authentic hadith, cited earlier); for that involves preserving the right of neighborliness, which is preferable.
Tawus reported that Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him) said to the Yemenites: "Bring me as charities thick linen garments, or woolen cloth, in place of the barley and sorghum: lighter for you and better for the Companions of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in Medina" (reported by al-Bukhari in suspended form, in the imperative form, no 32, in the chapter on presenting wealth as zakat; al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Taghliq al-Ta'liq (3/12): the chain of transmission up to Tawus is sound, but he did not hear from Mu'adh, so the report is discontinuous). The point of the reasoning is that Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him) transferred the charity from Yemen to Medina; the word "charity" encompasses the zakat of wealth and the zakat of breaking the fast: the permissibility of transferring the zakat is thereby proven. Imam al-Haddad al-Zabidi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: his statement: the transfer of the zakat from one town to another is disliked, and the charity of each people is assigned among them; that involves preserving the right of neighborliness: the closer the cohabitation, the more this preservation is required; if he transfers it to others, it suffices him, even though it be disliked, for the addressee of the text is unrestricted: the poor (al-Jawhara al-Nira 2/1).
The second opinion: it is not permitted to transfer the zakat from one place to another; this is the view of the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, with details among them. The Malikis said: the zakat must be distributed at the place of obligation or near it, that is, at a distance less than the qasr distance, which has the status of the place of obligation. If there is no entitled recipient at the place of obligation or near it, the whole is transferred as an obligation to a place that has one, even at the qasr distance; if there is one at the place of obligation or near it, distribution in that place or near it becomes necessary. Transfer at the qasr distance is not permitted, unless the one to whom it is transferred is poorer and more needy: it is then recommended to transfer the greater part of it to them; if he transfers all of it or distributes all of it at the place of obligation, it suffices. If he transfers it to someone other than the poorest and most needy, two cases arise. The first: transfer to someone of equal need with the people of the place of obligation is not permitted, but the zakat counts, that is, he is not required to give it again. The second: transfer to someone of lesser need is subject to two opinions: that of the Mukhtasar of Khalil, which states that the zakat does not count; and that reported by Ibn Rushd and in al-Kafi, which states that it counts, for it has not left its categories (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/500-502, al-Fawakih al-Dawani 1/346, Mawahib al-Jalil 2/359).
The Shafi'is said: it is not permitted to transfer the zakat from one town to another; the zakat should be distributed in the town of the wealth, and if he transfers it to another town while entitled recipients exist, it is forbidden to him. Does this transfer count? Two opinions are held. According to the first, it does not count, for it is an obligatory right of the categories of the town; if he diverts it from them to others, it does not count, like the bequest made to the categories of the town. According to the second, it counts, for the recipients are among the people of the charities and resemble the categories of the town where the zakat is. The sound view among them is that there is no difference between transfer at the qasr distance and at a lesser distance (al-Majmu 6/210-211, Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/118, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 6/167).
The Hanbalis, in the doctrine, said: it is not permitted to transfer the zakat to a town at the qasr distance; it is even forbidden, whether to a relative or for a pressing need. In one narration from Ahmad, the transfer is disliked without being forbidden; and in another narration from Ahmad, it is permitted to transfer it to the frontier regions; the qadi explained it by the fact that the frontier fighter's post may be prolonged and he cannot part with it. Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: according to Ahmad, transferring it to the frontier or elsewhere is permitted in case of preponderant need; in al-Faiq: it is transferred for a weighty interest, such as to a relative or a needy person, and this is the view chosen. Shaykh Taqi al-Din chose it while restricting it to two days' journey, and limiting the prohibition of transferring the zakat to the qasr distance has no legal evidence; al-Ajurri chose the permissibility of transferring it to relatives (al-Insaf 3/201). The sound view among them is that transfer to a distance less than the qasr distance is permitted, and such is the doctrine. According to the view that transfer is forbidden, does it count? Two narrations are held: according to the first, it counts, and such is the doctrine, the qadi saying that the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words implies it; according to the second, it does not count, the view chosen by al-Khiraqi, Ibn Hamid and the qadi (al-Insaf 3/200-202, al-Furu 2/425, Kashshaf al-Qina 2/264, al-Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/407, al-Mughni 3/446-448, al-Ifsah 1/370).
Its proponents, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, grounded their doctrine, the prohibition of transferring the zakat from the country of obligation to another country while its entitled recipients exist in the country of obligation, on the Sunna, the early reports and rational argument. As for the Sunna, the first argument is the hadith of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him) to Yemen and said to him: "Call them to testify that there is no deity but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah. If they obey you in that, inform them that Allah has made five prayers obligatory upon them every day and night. If they obey you in that, inform them that Allah has made a charity obligatory upon them from their wealth, taken from their rich and rendered to their poor" (authentic hadith, cited earlier). The point of the reasoning is his statement: "taken from their rich and rendered to their poor", that is, the charity is taken from the rich of the people of Yemen and rendered to their poor; the charity of the people of every town is therefore most entitled to its inhabitants, and transferring the charity from one town to another is not permitted; the charity intended is the obligatory charity, which encompasses the zakat of breaking the fast. Imam al-Baghawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this hadith contains the proof that transferring the charity away from the place of obligation is not permitted while entitled recipients exist there, and that the charity of every region belongs to its entitled recipients (Sharh al-Sunna 5/474). The second argument is the hadith of Awf ibn Abi Juhayfa from his father: "The collector of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came to us; he took the charity from our rich and placed it among our poor. I was an orphan boy, and he gave me from this zakat a young she-camel" (weak hadith: al-Tirmidhi 649, Ibn Abi Shayba in al-Musannaf 10644, al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra 12919; the qalusa is a she-camel come to maturity, see al-Nihaya of Ibn al-Athir 4/100). The point of the reasoning is that the charity of the people of every town is assigned to their poor and is not transferred to others, as his statement attests: "he took the charity from our rich and placed it among our poor".
As for the early reports, the first is what Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam reported: Umar ibn al-Khattab criticized Mu'adh when the latter sent him a third of the people's charity from Yemen, and said to him: "I did not send you as a collector nor as a taker of tribute; I sent you so that you take from their rich and render it to their poor." Mu'adh replied: "I have sent you nothing while I find someone to take it from me" (reported by Abu Ubayd in Kitab al-Amwal, no 1912; al-Shaykh al-Albani said in al-Irwa al-Ghalil (3/346): this chain is weak). The second is what Abu Ubayd reported from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib: Umar sent Mu'adh as collector to Banu Kilab or Banu Sa'd ibn Dhubyan, and he distributed everything among them to the point of leaving nothing, down to the camel he had ridden out on; his wife asked: "Where is what you brought, as the collectors bring the gifts of their families?" He said: "A guardian was with me." She said: "You were entrusted by the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and by Abu Bakr; would Umar have sent you a guardian?" She complained of it among the women and complained of Umar, who was informed of it, summoned Mu'adh and said: "Was it I who sent you a guardian?" He replied: "I found nothing else to excuse myself to her." Umar laughed, gave him something and said: "Conciliate her with it" (reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal 1/710, no 1913; a weak chain by discontinuity). The third is what Abu Ubayd reported: Ali ibn Thabit informed us from Sufyan ibn Sa'id: "A zakat was carried from Rayy to Kufa, and Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz sent it back to Rayy" (reported by Abu Ubayd in Kitab al-Amwal 1/708, no 1606). These reports clearly indicate that the zakat of the people of every town is assigned to their poor and is not transferred to the inhabitants of another town. Abu Ubayd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars of today agree on all these reports: the inhabitants of every town or village have more right to their charity so long as the number of the needy among them is equal; beyond that, even if all their charity is taken, until the collector returns with nothing (al-Amwal 1/709-710).
As for the rational argument, it is that the poor of the town know the wealth of the rich and attach hopes to it, and the transfer estranges them: distribution to them is therefore preferable (Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/118). Shaykh al-Islam for his part issued a fatwa on the permissibility of transferring the zakat and what ranks as such for a legal interest: asked (may Allah have mercy on him) about one who has a zakat to pay and whose relatives, in a town at the qasr distance, are entitled to the charity: may he give it to them or not, he answered: Praise be to Allah: if they are needy, entitled to the zakat, and no one else secures their sufficiency, he gives them from the zakat, even if they are in a distant town, and Allah knows best (Majmu al-Fatawa 25/85). Ibn Zanjawayh (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the Sunna among us is that the imam sends over the charities of every people one who takes from their rich and distributes among their poor; however, the imam has regard for Islam and its people, and the believers are brothers: if he sees fit to divert part of the charity of a people self-sufficient without it to the poor of a people in need of it, he does so with investigation and ijtihad (Kitab al-Amwal of Ibn Zanjawayh 4/493).
From this confrontation the sum of the evidence combines: the evidence of those who forbid bears on the absence of need and interest, and that of those who permit on the presence of need and interest. Among the cases of need for which the transfer of the zakat is permitted:
"The example of the believers in their mutual love, mercy and compassion is that of one body: when one limb complains of it, the whole body keeps vigil with it in sleeplessness and fever."reported by Muslim 2586
It follows from the foregoing that the distribution of the zakat in the land where it was collected remains preferable, and that its transfer to another land remains permitted according to rules:
The scholars differed over the status of transferring zakat al-fitr from the country of obligation to another country while entitled recipients exist in the country of obligation: does this transfer count as payment or not? Two opinions are held.
The first opinion: the transfer of zakat al-fitr from the country of obligation to another country while entitled recipients exist in the country of obligation counts as payment if it is given to those entitled to it; such is the doctrine of the Hanafis, that of the Malikis in the doctrine, one view of the Shafi'is and that of the Hanbalis in the doctrine (al-Mabsut 3/106, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/353, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/280, al-Jawhara al-Nira 2/1, Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/501, Mawahib al-Jalil 2/359, al-Fawakih al-Dawani 1/346, al-Majmu 6/210, Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/118, al-Insaf 3/201, al-Furu 2/425, Kashshaf al-Qina 2/214).
Al-Dasuqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: his statement "or if it is transferred to someone of lesser need, it does not count" was objected to by al-Mawwaqi: the doctrine is that the zakat counts, as reported by Ibn Rushd and in al-Kafi, and it is the apparent meaning, for it has not left its categories (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/501). Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if the owner transfers it, two narrations are held. According to the first, it does not count, for it is an obligatory right of the categories of the town, and giving it to others than them does not count, like the bequest made to the categories of the town. According to the other, it counts, for the recipients are among the people of the charities (al-Kafi 1/330). Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he does so, does the transfer count? Two narrations reported by Abu al-Khattab and those after him, when one says that its transfer is forbidden: according to the first, it counts, and such is the doctrine; the qadi said that the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words implies it, and that he finds no explicit text on it. According to the second, it does not count, the view chosen by al-Khiraqi, Ibn Hamid and the qadi (al-Insaf 3/201-202, see al-Furu 2/425 and al-Kafi of Ibn Qudama 1/330).
The second opinion: the transfer of zakat al-fitr from the country of obligation to another country while entitled recipients exist in the country of obligation does not count as payment, even if it is given to those entitled to it; this is the sound view among the Shafi'is, and a view of the Malikis and of the Hanbalis (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/501-502, al-Majmu 6/210, al-Insaf 3/201-202, al-Furu 2/425, al-Kafi 1/330). Imam al-Shirazi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he transfers it to the categories of another town, two opinions are held. According to the first, the zakat counts, for the recipients are among the people of the charities and resemble the categories of the town where the wealth is. According to the second, it does not count, for it is an obligatory right of the categories of the town; if he diverts it from them to others, it does not count, like the bequest made to the categories of the town. Among our companions, some distinguish two views on the permissibility of the transfer, one holding that it is permitted and the other that it is not; but as for its validity when he transfers it, there is a single view: it counts, and the first is the more correct (al-Muhadhdhab 1/173). Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the summary of the doctrine is that the zakat should be distributed in the town of the wealth; if he transfers it to another town while entitled recipients exist there, al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) has two opinions on the question; the companions have three paths on it, the most correct among them being that the two opinions on its counting reduce to two: the more correct is that it does not count, and the second is that it counts. There is no disagreement that the transfer is forbidden (al-Majmu 6/210).