Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > Zakat al-fitr > The amount due of burr (wheat in husk)
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
These pages specify the amounts of zakat al-fitr according to the foodstuffs: burr (wheat kept in its husk), aqit (dried curdled milk) and the types not mentioned in the texts. They then deal with the cases connected to the sa': the person who owns, on the eve of Eid, less than a sa' in surplus, paying more than the sa', a sa' made of several types, and paying the value in money. The positions of the 4 schools are reported with their evidence, their transmissions and the sayings of the classical references.
Because raisins nourish less than wheat, like barley and dates, their amount was set at the sa', as for barley and dates. The "of every type" variant is explained by the fact that the value of raisins usually exceeds the value of wheat: if half a sa' of wheat suffices, raisins are better. Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) proposed reconciling the 2 opinions by making raisins due in terms of their value: that value equaled the value of wheat in the era of Abu Hanifa, and that of barley and dates in the era of his 2 companions; on this same principle is understood the divergence of the 2 transmissions from Abu Hanifa ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i", 2/72).
Scholars differed on the amount due of burr in zakat al-fitr according to 2 opinions.
First opinion: the amount due of burr is half a sa'. This is the madhhab of the Hanafis. Ibn Hazm and Ibn Qudama reported it from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Mas'ud, Jabir, Abu Hurayra, Ibn Abbas, Ibn al-Zubayr, Muawiya, Aisha, Asma' bint Abi Bakr, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Ata', Tawus, Mujahid, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Urwa ibn al-Zubayr, Abu Salama ibn Abd al-Rahman and Sa'id ibn Jubayr; Ibn Hazm states in "al-Muhalla" (6/128, 131) that the transmission is sound from all of them except Abu Bakr, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud. It is also the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i", 2/72 ; "'Umdat al-Qari", 9/117 ; "Mukhtasar al-Quduri", 61 ; "al-Mabsut", 3/112-113 ; "Sharh Fath al-Qadir", 2/290, 295 ; "Tuhfat al-Fuqaha", 1/337 ; "al-Mughni", 4/34-35 ; "al-Ikhtiyar", 1/124 ; "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq", 1/308 ; "al-Ikhtiyarat al-fiqhiyya", 152 ; "Fath al-Bari", 3/374 ; "Nayl al-Awtar", 4/253 ; "Zad al-Ma'ad", 2/21).
Al-Sarakhsi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "the amount due of the charity, namely of wheat, is half a sa' according to our scholars" ("al-Mabsut", 3/112). Al-Kasani said: "as for explaining the type due and its amount, it is half a sa' of wheat according to us" ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i", 2/72). Al-Zayla'i said: "it is the madhhab of the majority of the Companions, among them the rightly guided caliphs, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Ibn al-Zubayr, Jabir and other great Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all); it was never narrated from any of them that half a sa' of wheat did not suffice: this therefore constitutes a consensus" ("Tabyin al-Haqa'iq", 1/308).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: "the fidya is a sa' of dates and barley; as for wheat, it is half a sa', which is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and the analogy with Ahmad's opinion concerning the other expiations" ("al-Ikhtiyarat al-fiqhiyya", 152). Ibn al-Qayyim said: "our shaykh used to strengthen this madhhab and say: it is the analogy with Ahmad's opinion on the expiations, namely that what is due of wheat in them is half of what is due of the other types" ("Zad al-Ma'ad", 2/21).
The holders of this opinion founded it on the Sunna, the athars (reports) and reason.
First, the Sunna:
Abdallah ibn Tha'laba said: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) preached to the people one or 2 days before the breaking of the fast and said: "Pay a sa' of burr, or a sa' and a half of wheat, or a sa' of dates, or a sa' of barley, for every person, young or old."Sound hadith, cited earlier
The point of the evidence is his saying: "pay a sa' of burr, or a sa' and a half of wheat": it is explicit that the amount due of wheat is half a sa'; it is therefore a text (nass) on the claim.
Second hadith: al-Hasan al-Basri reported that Ibn Abbas preached at the end of Ramadan on the pulpit of Basra: "Pay the charity of your fast", but the people seemed not to understand; he said: "who here is from the people of Medina? Stand up to your brothers and teach them, for they do not know: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) obliged this charity: a sa' of dates, or a sa' of barley, or half a sa' of wheat, for every free man or slave, male or female, young or old." And when Ali arrived and saw the fall in prices, he said: "Allah has made abundance available to you: so make it a sa' of everything." Reported by Abu Dawud (1622) and al-Nasa'i (1580), a weak hadith: Ibn Hazm refuted it at length in "al-Ihkam" (2/250-251).
His arguments: the day of the Battle of the Camel fell 10 days before the end of Jumada II of year 36; Ali stayed in Basra the rest of the month then set out back toward Kufa at the beginning of Rajab, leaving Ibn Abbas as governor, and never returned there; yet the report claims that Ibn Abbas was teaching zakat al-fitr there and that Ali arrived after: plain fabrication. Moreover, al-Hasan heard nothing from Ibn Abbas during his governorship of Basra, being then in Medina. Finally, Basra was founded in year 14 by Utba ibn Ghazwan, then governed by al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba, Abu Musa and Abdallah ibn Amir, with more than 300 Medinan Companions settling there; the city was conquered in the days of Umar and administered by his governors until Ibn Abbas, after a long span of time, in year 36: zakat al-fitr would therefore have been ignored there for more than 22 years, under the caliphates of Umar and Uthman; do you see Umar and Uthman neglecting to inform their subjects of this obligation? This report cannot enter a sound mind.
Third hadith: Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib reported that "the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) obliged zakat al-fitr as 2 mudds of wheat". These 2 hadiths indicate that the amount due of wheat is half a sa', and their evidence is manifest; their mursal character does not harm, for the mursal is proof according to some scholars.
Second, the athars:
All these athars are explicit that the amount due of wheat is half a sa', and their evidence of it is manifest.
Third, reason: it is the analogy of the amount due in zakat al-fitr with the amount due in the expiation of harm (kaffarat adha), on the common ground that each is the food of a poor person for one day; what is due in the expiation of harm is half a sa', established by explicit text, as in the hadith of Ka'b ibn Ujra, agreed upon: "fast 3 days, or feed 6 poor persons, half a sa' for each poor person"; the same applies to zakat al-fitr, for it belongs to the genus of expiations ("al-Mabsut", 3/113 ; "al-Ikhtiyarat al-fiqhiyya", 152 ; "Zad al-Ma'ad", 2/21).
Second opinion: the amount due of wheat is a sa'. This is the madhhab of the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, and it was narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, al-Hasan, Abu al-Aliya and Ishaq ("al-Sharh al-Saghir" of al-Dardir, 1/347 ; "al-Dhakhira", 3/170 ; "Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/387 ; "Sharh Muslim" of al-Nawawi, 7/60, 63 ; "al-Mughni", 4/34 ; "al-Ifsah", 1/344 ; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 1/471 ; "Fath al-Bari", 3/374 ; "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat", 1/442).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "what is due in the charity of the fitr is a sa' for every human being, and nothing less suffices for all the types paid; Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ishaq said this, and it was narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, al-Hasan and Abu al-Aliya" ("al-Mughni", 4/34). Ibn Hubayra said: "they differed over the amount due of each type, then agreed that it is a sa' of each of the 5 types, except Abu Hanifa, who said: for wheat in particular, half a sa' suffices" ("al-Ifsah", 1/344). Ibn Abd al-Barr said: "they differed over wheat; Malik, al-Shafi'i and their companions said: nothing less than a sa' suffices, neither for wheat nor for anything else, the sa' being the sa' of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that is, 4 mudds of his mudd; this is the view of the Basrians, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh said it" ("al-Tamhid", 4/135).
The holders of this opinion, that the amount of wheat is a sa', founded it on the Sunna and reason.
First, the Sunna. Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said: "we used to give, in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), a sa' of food, or a sa' of dates, a sa' of barley or a sa' of raisins"; then when Muawiya came and the samra' appeared, he said: "I see that a mudd of this equals 2 mudds" (sound hadith, cited earlier). This hadith indicates that the amount of wheat is a sa', in the 2 ways cited by Imam al-Nawawi: first, "food" means, in the usage of the people of the Hijaz, wheat in particular, all the more since he juxtaposed it with the other foodstuffs; second, he mentioned items of different values and made a sa' obligatory for each of them, which proves that what counts is the sa', not the value ("Sharh Muslim", 7/60). Ibn Abd al-Barr said: "whoever mentioned 'food' in this hadith did not differ over the fact that he meant wheat; some did not mention it" ("al-Istidhkar", 3/628 ; see "Tarh al-Tathrib", 4/50).
Second hadith: Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that "the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) urged the zakat of Ramadan: a sa' of dates, or a sa' of barley, or a sa' of wheat for every human being" (al-Hakim, "al-Mustadrak", 1493 ; al-Daraqutni, "Sunan", 2090), with a disputed chain: al-Daraqutni said that Bakr ibn al-Aswad is not strong, and Ibn Abd al-Hadi reports that Sufyan ibn Husayn is weak in his narration from al-Zuhri, although Muslim transmitted a version of it ("Tahqiq ahadith al-khilaf", 2/236).
Ibn Abi Su'ayr reported from his father that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Pay the charity of the fitr: a sa' of burr or wheat for every head, young or old, free or slave, male or female; your rich, Allah will purify, and your poor, Allah will return to him more than he gave."Al-Daraqutni 2105 ; in its chain, al-Nu'man ibn Rashid, of whom Imam Ahmad said: "contradictory in hadith, he reports objectionable hadiths" (see "al-Tahqiq fi ahadith al-khilaf" of Ibn al-Jawzi, 2/51)
These 2 hadiths indicate that the amount due of wheat is a sa', through the mention "or a sa' of wheat": they are a text on the claim.
Fourth hadith: Abdallah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "we were ordered to give the zakat of Ramadan for the young and the old, the free and the slave: a sa' of food; whoever paid burr, it sufficed him; barley, it sufficed him; raisins, it sufficed him; sult, it sufficed him"; he adds, as far as he remembers: "flour sufficed him, and sawiq sufficed him" (Ibn Zanjawayh, "al-Amwal", 5/140 ; Ibn Khuzayma, 2415 ; al-Daraqutni, "Sunan", 2091). The point of the evidence: the hadith states that the charity of the fitr is a sa' of food, then details the foodstuffs from which it is paid, among them burr: the amount of wheat is therefore a sa' like the others. This report is mursal: Imam Ahmad, Ibn al-Madini and al-Bayhaqi said that Muhammad ibn Sirin heard nothing from Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Abi Hatim reports that his father called it objectionable ("Tanqih al-Tahqiq", 2/237).
Second, reason: it is the analogy of wheat with the other types paid in zakat al-fitr, for it is a type from which the charity of the fitr is paid, and its amount is therefore a sa' like the others; and wheat being a type paid in the charity of the fitr, its measure cannot be other than a sa'. Moreover, the athars of this chapter have differed, and precaution is obligatory in matters of worship: precaution consists in completing the sa' ("al-Mughni", 4/35 ; "al-Mabsut", 3/112).
As for the majority's argument, drawn from Abu Sa'id's hadith "a sa' of food", and the sayings of al-Nawawi and Ibn Abd al-Barr that "food" there means wheat, Ibn al-Mundhir refuted them ("Fath al-Bari", 3/373): "some of our companions thought that his saying, in Abu Sa'id's hadith, 'a sa' of food', proved the sa' of wheat: they are mistaken, for Abu Sa'id spoke of food in general terms and then explained it"; indeed, Sahih al-Bukhari reports from Abu Sa'id: "we used to pay, in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), on the day of breaking the fast, a sa' of food", and Abu Sa'id adds: "and our food was barley, raisins, aqit and dates". In this hadith, Abu Sa'id himself clarified what he meant by "food", he who narrates it, and the narrator knows best his own intent.
Ibn al-Mundhir adds: "his saying 'when Muawiya came and the samra' appeared' proves that it was not their food before, so it was neither abundant nor food: how could it be imagined that they paid what did not exist?" This is confirmed by the hadith Ibn Khuzayma reports in his "Sahih" (2406) from Ibn Umar: "in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the zakat was only dates, raisins and barley; wheat was not part of it." Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said, after listing the chains of this hadith: "all these chains indicate that what Abu Sa'id means by 'food' in his hadith is not wheat" ("Fath al-Bari", 3/373).
Abu Sa'id's hadith on "food" was set out in the previous page: the narrator himself explains that it was "barley, raisins, aqit and dates", and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar concludes that all the chains of the hadith indicate that Abu Sa'id's "food" is not wheat ("Fath al-Bari", 3/373). Scholars then differed on the amount due of aqit: a full sa', or what equals its value. Two opinions.
First opinion: the amount due of aqit is a sa'. This is the madhhab of the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis ("al-Muntaqa" of al-Baji, 2/188, 190 ; "al-Sharh al-Saghir", 1/437 ; "Sharh al-Zarqani", 2/199 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/109 ; "al-Ifsah", 1/344 ; "al-Mughni", 4/40 ; "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat", 1/442 ; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/253).
Al-Dardir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "it, that is, zakat al-fitr, is a sa' of wheat, barley, sult, dhura, dukhn, rice, dates, raisins or aqit" ("al-Sharh al-Saghir", 1/437). Ibn Qudama said: "what is due in the charity of the fitr is a sa' for every human being, and nothing less suffices for all the types paid; Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ishaq said this" ("al-Mughni", 4/34).
This amount was established by the Sunna:
These 2 hadiths indicate that the amount due of aqit in zakat al-fitr is a sa', through the mention "or a sa' of aqit": they are a text on the claim.
Second opinion: the amount due of aqit is what equals its value, the value of a sa' of dates or barley, or of half a sa' of wheat. This is the madhhab of the Hanafis ("al-Mabsut" of al-Sarakhsi, 3/114 ; "Bada'i' al-Sana'i", 2/73). Al-Kasani said: "as for aqit, the value is considered in it: it only suffices on that basis" ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i", 2/73). Al-Sarakhsi said: "if he wishes to pay from other grains, he gives on the basis of the value; and likewise for aqit, he pays on the basis of the value according to us; if its value equals that of half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of barley, it is valid, otherwise not" ("al-Mabsut", 3/114).
The Hanafis founded their opinion, that the amount of aqit equals the value of a sa' of dates or barley or of half a sa' of wheat, on reason: no fixed measure may be established for the types on which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not rule, because measure cannot be established by opinion; and aqit is not established through a trustworthy channel. Al-Sarakhsi states: "our companions said: the hadith is shadh (isolated), it has not been transmitted in the famous athars, and on its model no measure may be established for what afflicts everyone; the criterion therefore remains the value: if it equals that of half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of barley, it is valid, otherwise not" ("al-Mabsut", 3/114 ; "Bada'i' al-Sana'i", 2/73).
Scholars differed on the amount due of the types not mentioned in the texts, such as rice and dhura, according to 2 opinions.
First opinion: the amount due of these types is a sa'. This is the madhhab of the Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis and others ("al-Muntaqa" of al-Baji, 2/188, 190 ; "al-Sharh al-Saghir", 1/437 ; "Sharh al-Zarqani", 2/199 ; "Nihayat al-Matlab" of Imam al-Haramayn, 3/417 ; "al-Mughni", 4/37 ; "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat", 1/344 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/106, 122 ; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/253).
Al-Hafiz al-'Iraqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "it is obligatory to pay it in zakat al-fitr as a sa' of whatever type; Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad and the majority of the scholars of the early and later generations said this" ("Tarh al-Tathrib", 4/49). Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "the texts of al-Shafi'i and his companions agree that what is due in the fitr, for every human being, is a sa', by the sa' of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)" ("al-Majmu'", 6/106). He says elsewhere: "what is due in the fitr, for every person, is a sa' of whatever type is paid: wheat, dates, raisins, barley or another valid type, and nothing less than a sa' suffices; Malik, Ahmad and most of the scholars said this" ("al-Majmu'", 6/122).
This amount was established by the Sunna and analogy.
First, the Sunna: Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "we used to pay, in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), on the day of breaking the fast, a sa' of food", and he adds: "and our food was barley, raisins, aqit and dates". In this hadith, Abu Sa'id informs that they paid, on the day of the fitr, a sa' of food; "food" is the name of everything eaten ("al-Misbah al-Munir", 2/373): it therefore embraces everything that nourishes, which proves that the amount due of the non-specified types is a sa', since they fall under the generality of the word. This is supported by the word of Allah:
"The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them"
Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5
for it embraces everything eaten.
Second, analogy: it is the analogy of the non-specified types with the specified types, on the common quality of nourishing in each of them.
Second opinion: the amount due of these types is what equals their value, the value of a sa' of dates or barley, or of half a sa' of wheat. These are the Hanafis ("al-Mabsut" of al-Sarakhsi, 3/114 ; "Bada'i' al-Sana'i", 2/73). The holders of this opinion founded it on reason: the types on which the texts have not ruled cannot receive a fixed measure, because measure cannot be established by opinion; payment is therefore made only through the value. Thus, if the payer wishes to pay zakat al-fitr from lentils, it is assessed against half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of dates; if the value of that half sa' of wheat or sa' of dates equals, for example, 10 dinars, he pays lentils worth 10 dinars; likewise, of rice, milk, cheese, dhura and everything not specified by the Lawgiver, he pays what equals its value ("al-Mabsut", 3/114 ; "Bada'i' al-Sana'i", 2/72-73).
Scholars differed concerning the one who owns, on the eve of Eid, less than a sa' in surplus over his food and the food of those in his care: is he obliged to pay it or not? Two opinions.
First opinion: he must pay it. This is the madhhab of the Malikis, and the view held in the Hanbali school. Al-Dardir said: "if the free Muslim can only manage part of it, that is, part of the sa' or of what is due to him, he pays it as an obligation" ("al-Sharh al-Saghir", 1/439). Al-Mawardi said: "the other view is that what he finds, beyond his food, be less than a sa'; yet al-Shafi'i stated in one of his books that he must pay it, for what we have said: inability to fulfill part of the obligations does not cancel what remains of them; and another view among some of our companions releases him, by analogy with the expiation of which part is not due when one cannot do all of it: this is a mistake" ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/374). Al-Buhuti said: "if only part of the sa' of zakat al-fitr remains after his dependents, he must pay it" ("Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/248).
The holders of this opinion founded it on the Sunna and reason.
First, the Sunna:
Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "When I command you a matter, do of it what you can."Bukhari 6858 ; Muslim 1337
The point of the evidence: the legally accountable person must do what he can of what the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded, by his saying "do of it what you can"; and this is a command, and a command implies obligation so long as no contrary indication exists, and none exists here. Whoever therefore owns less than a sa' must pay it, for he can fulfill it, according to this hadith.
Second, reason, from 4 angles:
Second opinion: one who owns, on the eve of Eid, less than a sa' in surplus over his food and that of his dependents is not obliged to pay it. This is a view among the Shafi'is and a transmission among the Hanbalis, chosen by Ibn Aqil ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/374 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/85 ; "Rawdat al-Talibin", 2/300 ; "al-Mughni", 4/58 ; "al-Kafi", 1/320 ; "al-Insaf", 3/166). As for the Hanafis, no explicit opinion has been found with them; their principles nonetheless lean toward the second opinion, since they impose zakat al-fitr only on the one who owns a zakat nisab.
Al-Nawawi said: "if part of the sa' remains, there are 2 famous views; the sounder in the eyes of the companions is that he must pay it; the companions agreed to validate it, and the author of al-Hawi transmitted it from al-Shafi'i; as for the other view, which likens it to part of the free man, it is a mistake" ("al-Majmu'", 6/85). Ibn Qudama said: "if only part of the sa' remains, must he pay it? Two transmissions: one, no, chosen by Ibn Aqil; the other, yes" ("al-Mughni", 4/58). Al-Mardawi said: "if part of the sa' remains, must he pay it? Two transmissions: one says he must pay it, the other that he does not pay it" ("al-Insaf", 3/166).
The holders of this second opinion founded it on reason: it is the analogy of zakat al-fitr with the expiation, on the common ground that each is a right of the poor; the expiation is not paid in part when one cannot do all of it, and likewise zakat al-fitr ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/374 ; "al-Mughni", 4/58).
Jurists differed on the permissibility of paying more than the Prophet's sa' in zakat al-fitr, according to 2 opinions.
First opinion: it is permissible to pay more than the sa' in zakat al-fitr. This is the opinion of the majority of jurists: Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis ("Majmu' al-Fatawa" of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, 31/249 ; "al-Mughni", 4/37 ; "al-Furu'" of Ibn Muflih, 2/408 ; "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat", 1/442 ; "Nihayat al-Zayn", 1/176).
It is stated in "Nihayat al-Zayn", according to the Shafi'i madhhab: "increasing beyond the sa' is recommended, for fear that some deficiency may be in it" ("Nihayat al-Zayn", 1/176). Ibn Muflih said: "whoever pays above the sa' gains a greater reward" ("al-Furu'", 2/408). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: "the jurists disputed over the quantified obligation when it is increased, such as zakat al-fitr when more than a sa' is paid; most of them permitted it, and it is the madhhab of al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa and Ahmad; it was narrated from Malik that he disliked it; as for increase in quality, they agreed on it; the correct position is to permit both, according to the word of Allah:
"And upon those who can bear it with hardship, a redemption: feeding a poor person. Whoever volunteers good, it is better for him. But fasting is better for you, if only you knew"
Surah Al-Baqarah, 184
And it is established, by the agreement of the scholars, in the books of authentic hadith and the books of exegesis and fiqh, that when Allah made Ramadan obligatory, the resident had the choice between fasting and feeding a poor person each day: the obligation was therefore to feed the poor, and Allah encouraged him to feed more, saying: "whoever volunteers good, it is better for him"; people were thus on 3 levels: the highest is to fast, then to feed more than one poor person each day, and the lowest to be content with feeding one poor person; then Allah made fasting obligatory and removed the choice among the 3 ("Majmu' al-Fatawa", 31/249-250).
The holders of the first opinion, the majority, established the permissibility of the increase by the Sunna and reason.
First, the Sunna:
Ubayy ibn Ka'b (may Allah be pleased with him) said: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent me to collect the zakat. I passed by a man who, having gathered his property for me, found in it, of the share due, only a one-year-old she-camel; I said to him: "pay the one-year-old she-camel, it is your zakat"; he replied: "that is the one that has neither milk nor a back; but here is a great she-camel, full and fat: take it"; I said: "I shall take nothing without an order, and the Messenger of Allah is near you: if you wish, come to him and present to him what you presented to me; if he accepts it from you, I shall accept it." The man came with me and with the she-camel until we reached the Messenger of Allah, and he said to him: "O Prophet of Allah, your envoy came to take from me the zakat of my property; by Allah, neither the Messenger of Allah nor his envoy had ever stood over my property before him; he sees in it, he claims, only a one-year-old she-camel that has neither milk nor a back, while I offered him a great she-camel, full and fat, which he refused; here it is, I have brought it to you, O Messenger of Allah: take it." The Messenger of Allah said to him: "that is what is upon you; if you volunteer good, may Allah reward you for it and we accept it from you." The man said: "here it is, O Messenger of Allah, take it." The Messenger of Allah ordered that it be received and prayed that his property be blessed.Hasan hadith: Abu Dawud 1583 ; Ahmad 14521
The point of the evidence, on the permissibility of the increase in the obligatory, is his saying: "if you volunteer good, may Allah reward you for it and we accept it from you": a text on accepting what exceeds the obligation, together with the increase of reward; and by its generality it embraces zakat al-fitr.
Second, reason: it is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya mentions, indicated above: the analogy of zakat al-fitr with the compensation of fasting.
Second opinion: paying more than the sa' in zakat al-fitr is disliked (makruh) when one intends thereby to outdo the Lawgiver and to block the means; but if one does not intend to outdo the Lawgiver and sufficing does not depend on it, there is then no makruh. This is the madhhab of the Malikis ("Mawahib al-Jalil", 2/374 ; "al-Fawa'ih al-Dawani", 1/348 ; "Hashiyat al-Adawi", 1/642 ; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 2/232 ; "al-Sharh al-Saghir", 1/438).
Al-Dardir said: "refraining from increasing beyond the sa' is recommended, rather the increase is disliked; for when the Law fixes a thing, what is added to it is an innovation: sometimes it entails corruption, as in prayer, and sometimes it is disliked, as here, and as in the tasbih beyond 33; and the makruh only occurs if the increase is confirmed, otherwise he must add what removes the doubt" ("al-Sharh al-Saghir", 1/438). Al-Adawi said: "the increase beyond the sa' is disliked if it is confirmed and one intends thereby to outdo the Lawgiver; but when sufficing does not depend on it, there is no makruh" ("Hashiyat al-Adawi", 1/642).
It is reported in "Mawahib al-Jalil" of al-Hattab: "his saying 'the sa'' may mean the prohibition of increasing beyond the sa', pointing to the saying of al-Qarafi: Malik was asked: 'are you content with the large mudd?' He said: 'no, but with the mudd of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); if he intends good, let him do it in the strict manner, to block the alteration of the legal measures.' It may also mean the prohibition of the poor exceeding a sa', as Ibn Yunus said, without contradicting his following words: 'the poor pay to one instead of several', for there he states what is recommended, whereas there he states what is permitted; and the author may have intended both meanings at once" ("Mawahib al-Jalil", 2/373-374 ; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 2/232).
The Malikis founded the disliked character of the increase on reason: the measure of the sa' is fixed by the Lawgiver, and what the Lawgiver has fixed cannot be increased, just as one does not increase the tasbih beyond 33.
Scholars differed on the permissibility of paying a sa' put together from different types, according to 2 opinions.
First opinion: it is not permitted to pay a sa' drawn from different types. This is the madhhab of the Shafi'is ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/365 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/114 ; "Asna al-Matalib", 1/392). Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "al-Shafi'i, the author and the rest of the companions said: for a single fitr, a sa' of 2 types does not suffice, whether the 2 types are identical or one is of the obligatory and the other superior" ("al-Majmu'", 6/114).
The Shafi'is founded it on the Sunna and reason.
First, the Sunna:
Abdallah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) reports: "the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) obliged zakat al-fitr: a sa' of dates or a sa' of barley, for every free man or slave, male or female, among the Muslims."Bukhari 1433 ; Muslim 984
This hadith establishes the obligation of paying a complete sa' of a single type; for his saying "he obliged zakat al-fitr: a sa' of dates" shows it, and paying a sa' drawn from several types amounts to deviating from what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made obligatory, which is not permitted.
Second, reason: it is the analogy of zakat al-fitr with the expiation of the oath; the expiation of the oath consists in feeding 10 poor persons or clothing them, and it cannot be divided, for example feeding 5 and clothing 5; likewise the sa' of zakat al-fitr cannot be divided, part in barley and part in dates for example, for he is commanded to pay a single one and has paid neither ("al-Majmu'", 6/114 ; "Asna al-Matalib", 1/392).
Second opinion: it is permitted to pay a sa' drawn from different types, so long as one does not deviate from the textualized. This is the opinion of the Hanafis and Hanbalis ("Hashiyat Ibn Abidin", 2/365). Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "it is permitted with us to complete one type with another textualized type"; and it is stated in "al-Bahr": "if he pays half a sa' of barley and half a sa' of dates, or half a sa' of dates and a mudd of wheat, or half a sa' of barley and a quarter of a sa' of wheat, it is valid." Al-Mardawi said: "paying a sa' of the types of this madhhab suffices: the text and the companions stipulate it" ("al-Insaf", 3/183). Ibn Qudama said: "paying a sa' of several types suffices if one does not deviate from the textualized" ("al-Kafi", 1/323).
They founded it on reason, from 2 angles: on the one hand, the analogy with the fitr of the slave held in common, when each of the 2 partners pays a type different from the other's; likewise zakat al-fitr. On the other hand, each type suffices on its own, so their combination is likewise, their aims being close and unified ("al-Kafi", 1/323 ; "al-Sharh al-Kabir" of Ibn Qudama, 2/666 ; "al-Mubdi'", 2/442 ; "Matalib Uli al-Nuha", 2/111).