Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > Zakat al-fitr > The amount of zakat al-fitr: the sa' and cash value
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
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 four 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 two 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 two companions; on this same principle is understood the divergence of the two 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 two 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 two 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 ten 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 three hundred 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 twenty-two 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 two mudds of wheat". These two 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 three days, or feed six 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 five 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, four 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 two mudds" (sound hadith, cited earlier). This hadith indicates that the amount of wheat is a sa', in the two 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 two 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 two 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 two 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, ten dinars, he pays lentils worth ten 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 four 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 two 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 two 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 three 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 three ("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 thirty-three; 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 thirty-three.
Scholars differed on the permissibility of paying a sa' put together from different types, according to two 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 two types does not suffice, whether the two 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 ten poor persons or clothing them, and it cannot be divided, for example feeding five and clothing five; 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 two angles: on the one hand, the analogy with the fitr of the slave held in common, when each of the two 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).
The question of paying the value arises for the zakat in general: when a sheep is due from a flock owner, a she-camel from the owner of camels, an ardabb of wheat from his harvest or a qintar from his fruit, is he obliged to pay these very things, or does he choose between them and paying their value in money, the value then discharging his zakat? The jurists differed: some prohibit it absolutely, the Shafi'is and Zahiris; others permit it absolutely, the Hanafis, Sufyan al-Thawri and al-Bukhari; others permit it in some cases only, the Malikis and Hanbalis. This concerns the zakat in general.
As for zakat al-fitr, three opinions contend:
Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "they differed over whether one may pay the value in place of the kind; Malik and al-Shafi'i said: the value is not paid in the zakat in place of the textualized; Abu Hanifa said: it is permitted, whether one is able to pay the textualized or not" ("Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/196). The root of their difference is whether the zakat is an act of worship or a right owed to the poor: whoever holds it to be worship judges invalid what is paid other than those kinds, for worship performed otherwise than commanded is corrupt; whoever holds it to be a right of the poor sees no difference between the value and the kind. The Shafi'is add: even granting that it is a right of the poor, the Lawgiver attached that right to the kind in order to associate the poor with the rich in the very kinds of wealth. The Hanafis reply that the kinds are mentioned only to ease the owners, each paying more readily the wealth he has at hand; this is why an athar reports that the blood money was claimed in garments from the people of garments, as comes in the chapter of the penalties.
The evidence of each opinion: first, the sayings of the holders of the first opinion, those who permit the value in zakat al-fitr, and their evidence. Al-Kasani said: "the description of the obligatory is that the textualized is due as valued wealth, absolutely, not as a kind: one may therefore pay its value, in dirhams, dinars, coin, merchandise or anything else, and this is our position."
Al-Shafi'i said: "the value is not paid", and this holds for all the zakat. His argument: the texts made specific things obligatory, and permitting the value would amount to applying the ruling of the text otherwise than it was stated, which is not permitted. Answer: the obligatory in reality is the enrichment of the poor, according to his saying: "enrich them this day so that they need not beg"; enrichment is achieved by the value, which is even more complete and more abundant, closer to meeting the need; the text is therefore reasoned by enrichment, and permitting the value does not in reality apply the ruling of the text ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i", 2/73).
Ibn Abi Shayba (may Allah have mercy on him) devoted in his "Musannaf" a chapter: "on giving dirhams in zakat al-fitr" ("al-Musannaf", 2/398):
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "al-Thawri and Abu Hanifa permitted it, and it was reported from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz and al-Hasan; it was reported from Ahmad a saying like theirs for every zakat except the fitr" ("al-Mughni", 4/43). Al-Nawawi said: "it is the apparent madhhab of al-Bukhari in his Sahih" ("al-Majmu'", 5/384). Ibn Battal said: "al-Bukhari argued for this madhhab, though he differed much from Abu Hanifa; but the following of the hadiths led him to it" ("Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari", 3/449). Ibn Rashid said: "al-Bukhari joined the Hanafis in this issue despite his many disagreements with them, but the evidence led him to it" ("Fath al-Bari", 3/312 ; "'Umdat al-Qari", 9/4).
The evidence of this group: first, the report of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "enrich them this day so that they need not beg" (reported by Ibn Zanjawayh in "al-Amwal" (5/148), al-Daraqutni in his "Sunan" (2/152, no. 67), al-Bayhaqi in his "Sunan" (4/175, no. 7528) and Ibn Adi in "al-Kamil" (7/55), via the chain of Abu Mash'ar from Nafi'; Abu Mash'ar was weakened by a group of memorizers, among them al-Bukhari, al-Nasa'i and Ibn Ma'in, and the hadith was weakened by Ibn Abd al-Hadi ("al-Tanqih", 2/234), al-'Iraqi ("Tarh al-Tathrib", 4/59), al-San'ani ("Subul al-Salam", 2/138) and Ibn al-Mulaqqin ("al-Badr al-Munir", 5/620).
The aim of this hadith is to meet the need of the poor and to enrich them; this does not change with the identity of the amount and the variety of the forms of wealth, and enrichment by the value equals enrichment by food, sometimes even more: the abundance of food with the poor person pushes him to sell it, whereas the value enables him to buy what he needs in food, clothing and other necessities. Al-Sarakhsi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "enrichment is achieved by paying the value as by paying the food, and filling the need by the value may be more manifest. We do not say that the obligatory is a right of the poor, but a right of Allah purely, directed to the poor so that Allah may suffice him of the provision He promised; the criterion is therefore a locus fit to suffice him, like the jizya, which was made obligatory for the sufficiency of the fighter and is paid by value" ("al-Mabsut", 2/157). He says elsewhere: "if he gives the value of wheat, it is valid with us, for the criterion is the attainment of richness, which is attained by the value as by wheat."
The jurist Abu Ja'far used to say: "paying the value is preferable, for it is closer to the benefit of the poor, who buys at once what he needs; wheat and barley were specified because trade in Medina was then done in them; but in our lands trade is done in money, the most prized of wealth: paying from it is therefore preferable" ("al-Mabsut", 3/107). Abu Bakr al-Jassas said: "our companions permitted giving the value of the food, for the aim is that the poor derive from this amount the benefit intended, a benefit he derives from the value as much as from the food; nor is it forbidden to say of the one who gives dirhams to buy what he will eat and wear that he fed and clothed him. Consider the reality of 'feeding': it is to place the food at his disposal so that he eats it; yet if one gives him ownership of it and the poor man sells it without eating it, it suffices him; and if he gives him a garment that he does not wear but sells, he is clothed by that gift: what counts is that the wealth reach him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) therefore fixed zakat al-fitr at half a sa' of burr, or a sa' of dates or barley, then said: 'enrich them this day so that they need not beg': the aim is that they be enriched to the point of not begging, not the amount of food as such, since enrichment is attained by the value as by the food. Were one to object that, the value being licit and the aim being that this wealth reach the poor, the mention of food would serve no purpose, its values usually varying, and that this mention proves one may not pass to the value, the answer is: it is not as you imagine, and mentioning the food is of the greatest benefit: he mentioned it and guided us by that mention to the permissibility of giving its value, leaving the choice between giving wheat or dirhams for its value, or both in kind, as the Prophet said: 'upon whom a bint labun is due and he does not find it, a bint makhad is taken from him, with two ewes or twenty dirhams': he gave him the choice, while he was able to buy the bint laboun, which is the specified amount; likewise the blood money of a hundred camels was accepted by the community in dirhams and dinars, as a value, despite their differences; and whoever marries a woman against a slave of middle rank may present him in person, and his value is accepted too" ("Ahkam al-Qur'an", 4/120, with slight adaptation).
And Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) reports that "the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) obliged zakat al-fitr: a purification of the faster from idle talk and obscenity, and food for the poor" (hasan hadith, cited earlier). Considering the general meaning of the meaning of the zakat, namely his saying: "a purification of the faster and food for the poor", and his saying: "enrich them this day so that they need not beg", we find in them an indication that it may be paid in everything that feeds the poor, without fixing its limit or restricting it to a type; attaching the non-textualized to the textualized through the shared cause is therefore a sound path ("Tatimma Adwa' al-Bayan", 8/286 ; "al-Fawa'ih al-Dawani", 8/412).
Discussion of this argument: Imam al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "whoever does not grasp the aim of al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) treats it lightly and sees in the evidence only the filling of the need, which falls far short of its meaning. Filling the need is an aim, but not the whole of it: the obligations of the Law are of three types. The first is pure worship, with no place for personal aims, such as the stoning of the pillars: the aim of the Law in it is trial through the act, so that the servant manifests his servitude by doing what has no rational meaning; for what has one, nature itself assists him and invites him to it, and servitude does not appear; servitude appears only when the movement is done solely for the command of the Worshipped; and most of the rites of the pilgrimage are thus: the Prophet said in his ihram: 'here I am for a pilgrimage that is true, in worship and servitude', a hadith reported by al-Bazzar and al-Daraqutni in "al-'Ilal" from Anas. The second type covers the obligations whose aim is a rational benefit, without worship being intended, as settling the debt of men or returning usurped property: no offense without act and intention; as soon as the right reaches its holder, willingly or by compensation, the obligation is discharged and the address of the Law falls away. These two types admit no composition, and all people attain them. The third is the composite, aiming at both things together: the share of the servants and the trial of the accountable person in servitude, like the stoning of the pebbles, which joins worship and the restitution of rights; a rational type in itself, which, once established by the Law, requires joining the two meanings without neglecting the finer of the two, worship and servitude, which is perhaps the more important. The zakat is of this kind, and only al-Shafi'i noticed it: the share of the poor is intended in the filling of the need, which is evident to minds, and the right of worship in following the details is intended by the Law; taking ease in distinguishing the types of one's wealth does not harm the share of the poor, but it harms the worship. That worship is intended by fixing the types is proven by the points treated in the books of disagreement, the clearest being: the Law makes a ewe due for five camels, ordering a shift from camels to the ewe without passing to the two monies nor to valuation; and if one objects the compensation of twenty dirhams with the two ewes, the difference there is not assessed in value but fixed by the Law. This and its like prove that the zakat was not left without worship, like the pilgrimage, but that the two meanings were joined in it; and weak minds fall short of composites" ("Ihya 'Ulum al-Din", 1/212-213).
Second, what al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) reports in his "Sahih" from Mu'adh. Al-Bukhari entitles a chapter: "the barter (al-'ard) in the zakat", and cites Tawus: "Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him) said to the people of Yemen: bring me merchandise, garments, a khamis or a labis, in the charity, in place of barley and dhura; it is lighter for you and better for the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in Medina" (reported by al-Bukhari in suspended form (2/252, no. 32), and connected by Ibn Abi Shayba in "al-Musannaf" (2/404) and al-Bayhaqi in his "Sunan" (4/113)). Ibn Rashid says: "al-Bukhari joined the Hanafis in this issue despite his many disagreements with them, but the evidence led him to it" ("Fath al-Bari", 3/312 ; "'Umdat al-Qari", 9/4). Badr al-Din al-Ayni (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "our companions used it as proof of the validity of paying values in the zakat" ("'Umdat al-Qari", 9/4).
Ibn Battal (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Mu'adh used to transport the charities to Medina, where the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) undertook to distribute them; yet there is nothing in the zakat of the order of garments, and the Prophet knew it: his acceptance of that transport therefore proves the validity of paying a substitute in the zakat; and after his death, Abu Bakr delivered these goods before the Companions in their places, knowing that garments are not due in the zakat: this amounts to the agreement of the Companions on the validity of taking values" ("Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari", 3/447).
Discussion of this evidence: the majority answer it in several ways. First, this report is mursal. Al-Isma'ili said: "the hadith of Tawus, were it sound, ought to have been cited for a conclusion to be drawn from it; if it is mursal, it is no proof" ("'Umdat al-Qari", 9/4). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "this suspended statement has a sound chain up to Tawus, but Tawus did not hear Mu'adh: it is interrupted; whoever says otherwise should not be trusted; al-Bukhari cites it in suspended form in the jussive style, so it is sound according to him, for a suspension in the jussive style conveys authenticity only for the one who suspended it; but his citing it amid his arguments implies its strength in his view, as though the hadiths of the chapter backed it; and we have reported the athar of Tawus in the 'Kitab al-Kharaj' of Yahya ibn Adam through two chains of Ibn Uyayna, from Ibrahim ibn Maysara and Amr ibn Dinar, both of whom separated it from Tawus" ("Fath al-Bari", 3/312).
Next, some said that "the charity" here means the jizya. Al-Bayhaqi said: "this befits Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him) better, and is more like what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered: taking the kind in the charities and taking the dinar, whose substitute was the ma'afir, Yemeni garments, in the jizya; and his transport to Medina indicates it; yet Mu'adh held that transport in the charities is impossible, as his attribution to the Muhajirun and Ansar indicates; the jizya is deserved by migration and support, whereas the zakat is deserved by poverty and need." Al-Hafiz says: "his saying 'charity' refutes whoever claims it was the kharaj; al-Bayhaqi reports that some saw in it the jizya in place of the charity, and if that is established the argument falls; but the famous version is the first; and Ibn Abi Shayba reports from Warqa', from al-Thawri, from Ibrahim ibn Maysara, from Tawus, that Mu'adh used to take merchandise in the charity"; al-Isma'ili answers that the meaning may be: "bring it to me, I shall take it from you in place of the barley and dhura I take by purchase, with what I take"; his taking it would then reach its place, and he would then take in its stead what he buys, more widely available among them and more useful to the taker; supported by the fact that, had it belonged to the zakat, it would not have been returned to the Companions, whereas the Prophet had ordered him to take the zakat from their rich to give it to their poor. It was answered: nothing prevents that he carried the zakat to the emir so that he would distribute it, and this is the argument of those who permit transporting the zakat from one land to another, an equally disputed issue.
It has also been said, in answer to the story of Mu'adh: it was his ijtihad, carrying no proof; and this is questionable, for he was the most knowledgeable of men in the lawful and unlawful, and the Prophet had shown him what to do when he sent him to Yemen; it has also been said: it was a situation of a particular state, carrying no proof, for he may have known the people of Medina to be in need, while the evidence stands against that act. Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab the Maliki said: "they used to call the jizya 'charity'; perhaps this belongs to it"; he is answered by his saying "in place of barley and dhura": the jizya was then collected from those people neither in barley nor in dhura, but in money.
Al-Ayni said: "they also said that his saying 'bring me merchandise of garments' means: bring it to me, I shall take it from you in place of the barley and dhura I take by purchase; his taking it would reach its place, and he would then take in its stead what he buys, more widely available and more useful to the taker; and they said: had it belonged to the zakat, it would not have been returned to the companions of the Prophet in Medina alone; how would it be agreed to return it to them, he who said: 'it is taken from their rich and given to their poor'?" Badr al-Din al-Ayni refuted these answers of the majority: "as for their saying 'it is mursal', we say: the mursal is proof with us. And their saying 'the charity means the jizya': four objections. First: he said 'in place of barley and dhura', which are not due in the jizya by consensus. Second: the text is 'charity', as with al-Bukhari, whereas the jizya is a tribute, not a charity: whoever names it so does violence to it. Third: he said it when the Messenger of Allah sent him to take their zakat, and he acted in compliance with his mission, whose cause is the zakat: how could it be carried to the jizya? Fourth: the address is with the Muslims, to whom he shows the good in it for themselves and for the Muhajirun and Ansar; for were he not intending them, whom would he intend by 'better for the companions of the Prophet in Medina', who are the Muhajirun and Ansar, since the unbelievers do not choose good for them? And their claimed madhhab of Mu'adh forbidding the transport of the charities has no basis: no madhhab is attributed to a Companion during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). And their proof from his attribution to the Muhajirun and Ansar is not such: he did not attribute the charity to them absolutely, but meant the good of the poor among them, as though he said: better for the poor among them, having omitted the defined noun and given the genitive its case; and he transported the zakat to Medina only by the order of the Messenger of Allah, sent for that purpose; and it is permitted to transport it to a people in greater need than the poor on the spot, the poor of the Muhajirun and Ansar being needier, through migration and the straitness of Medina at that time."
If it is said: it has been reported that the jizya was then collected from Arab tribes under the name of "charity", and Mu'adh may have meant that; the answer is given with al-Suruji, reporting the qadi Abu Muhammad: "how ugly is this injustice and this ignorance of transmission! The jizya was called 'charity' only by Banu Taghlib and the Christians of the Arabs, who sought it in the caliphate of Umar: it is a jizya, call it what you will; the Muslims never called it charity." At-Tartushi objects: "Mu'adh was addressing the Muhajirun and Ansar in Medina; yet among the Muhajirun are Banu Hashim and Banu Abd al-Muttalib, to whom charity is unlawful, and among the Ansar are rich men, to whom it is unlawful: this proves it was the jizya." Al-Suruji answers: "his slip is very evident: he clung to the rope of desire; for by the Muhajirun and Ansar he meant those to whom charity is lawful, not those to whom it is forbidden; and likewise the jizya is not paid to all the Muhajirun and Ansar, but to its known channels." If it is said finally that the story of Mu'adh is an ijtihad carrying no proof, the answer is: Mu'adh was the most knowledgeable of men in the lawful and unlawful, and the Prophet had shown him what to do when he sent him to Yemen. Dawud the Zahiri and Ibn Hazm rejected this report of Mu'adh on several grounds. Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "this is no proof, for several reasons: first, it is mursal, Tawus never having met Mu'adh and being born only after his death; second, were it sound, it would be no proof, for it does not come from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and proof lies only in what comes from him; third, it is not stated that it concerned the zakat, and lying is not permitted: he may have said it to the people of the jizya, taking from them the dhura, barley and merchandise in its place; fourth, the proof of the invalidity of this report is that it says 'better for the people of Medina': Allah forbid that Mu'adh should make what Allah did not oblige better than what He obliged" ("al-Muhalla", 6/25).
Third, what Imam Ahmad reports from Abu Abdallah al-Sunabihi: "the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw in the zakat camels an aged she-camel and grew angry; he said: 'what is this?' It was said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I traded it for two camels from the edges of the zakat', and he fell silent." In a version of Abu Ya'la: the Messenger of Allah saw a fine she-camel among the zakat camels and said: "may Allah fight the owner of this she-camel!" He said: "I traded it for two camels from the edges of the camels." He said: "then it is well" (reported by Imam Ahmad in "al-Musnad" (4/349, no. 19089), Ibn Zanjawayh in "al-Amwal" (3/316), Abu Ya'la in "al-Musnad" (3/93, no. 1453), Ibn Abi Shayba in "al-Musannaf" (4/306) and al-Bayhaqi in "al-Kubra" (3/113), with a weak chain; al-Bukhari said in "al-Tarikh al-Awsat" (1/168, no. 774): "the hadith of the charity is not sound"). They see in it the proof of the permissibility of taking the value, for taking a she-camel for two camels is only done in consideration of the value.
Al-Sarakhsi said: "paying the value in place of the textualized, in the zakat, charities, tithe and expiations, is permitted with us, contrary to al-Shafi'i; some of our companions thought the value was a substitute, to the point of naming this issue 'the substitutes'; it is not so: going to the substitute is only allowed when the original is lacking, whereas paying the value even while the textualized kind is present in his ownership is permitted with us. Our proof is his saying: 'for every forty sheep, a ewe', which clarifies what is general in the Book of Allah; for the giving is textualized and what is given is not mentioned: its clarification therefore attaches to the general of the Book, as though Allah said: pay the zakat of every forty by a ewe; the ewe is thus a right of the poor by this text, and one may not busy oneself with reasonings to annul his right in the kind. The meaning is that this right is a right in wealth, fixed by ages known in the Law, and is not paid by the value, like gifts and sacrificial animals; or it is said: it is an act of worship attached to the locus of a kind and is not performed otherwise, as prostration, attached to the forehead and nose, is not performed on the cheek and chin. Paying a camel for five camels is permitted in my view by the text, not by the value: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'take from the camels the camels'; it is only when camels are few that he made a different type obligatory, to ease the owners of wealth; if the soul consents to paying the camel, it forsakes that ease, and the payment is valid by the text, not by the value."
He continues: "our proof too is the word of Allah: 'take from their wealth a charity': a text that what is taken is wealth; and the clarification of the Messenger of Allah aimed at easing the owners of livestock, not at restricting the obligation, for money is scarce among them and paying from what they have is easier for them; do you not see that he said: for five camels a ewe, while 'in' is literally an adverb of place and the kind of the ewe is not found in camels: we therefore know that the intent is its value in wealth. The Messenger of Allah saw in the zakat camels an aged she-camel, grew angry with the collector and said: 'did I not forbid you to take the best of people's wealth?' It was said: 'I traded it for two camels from the zakat camels'; and in a version: 'I traded it, and the Messenger of Allah fell silent'; and taking a camel for two camels is only in consideration of the value. And Mu'adh said in his sermon in Yemen: 'bring me a khamis that I may take from you in place of the charity, or in place of the dhura and barley', which is only conceivable in terms of value. The meaning is that he made the poor owner of valued wealth with the intention of the zakat, which is permitted, as paying a camel for five camels; for the aim is to enrich the poor, according to his saying: 'enrich them this day so that they need not beg'; and enrichment by the value equals that by the ewe, filling the need by the value sometimes being more manifest."
He concludes: "we do not say that the obligatory is a right of the poor, but a right of Allah purely, directed to the poor so that Allah may suffice him of the provision He promised; the criterion is a locus fit to suffice him, like the jizya, made obligatory for the sufficiency of the fighter and payable by value, unlike gifts and sacrificial animals: what is due there is the shedding of blood, and even if the animal dies after slaughter before being given in charity, nothing is due; and the shedding of blood is neither valued nor rationally meaningful; and prostration on the cheek and chin is no worship at all, to the point that no benefit is drawn from it and it is not resorted to in case of incapacity; what is not worship cannot stand in the place of worship; whereas paying the value as charity is a worship in which the need of the poor is filled, thus attaining the intended aim" ("al-Mabsut", 2/156-157).
Shaykh Atiyya Salim (may Allah have mercy on him) discussed this evidence: "as for the fine she-camel seen by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), replaced by two camels, it belongs to substitution of type for type acting on an interest: it does not leave the type of the obligation" ("Tatimma Adwa' al-Bayan", 8/287).
Fourth, what al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) reports in the chapter of the barter in the zakat: Thumama said: Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) reported to him that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to him the obligation Allah ordered His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to observe: "upon whom a bint makhad falls while he does not own it, but owns a bint labun, it is accepted from him, and the collector adds for him twenty dirhams or two ewes; upon whom a bint makhad falls without his owning it, while he owns an ibn labun, it is accepted from him with nothing added" (reported by al-Bukhari in his "Sahih" (2/252, no. 32, chapter of the barter in the zakat, no. 1380)). Badr al-Din al-Ayni (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "this matches the title of the chapter: it is permitted to give one camel age in place of another; and once the compensation paid to the collector is valid, the reverse is valid too; if the ewe may be taken for the difference of age of the obligation, merchandise may be taken in place of the obligation" ("'Umdat al-Qari", 9/6).
Al-Bukhari also reports, in the chapter of the one upon whom falls the zakat of a bint makhad he does not own: "upon whom falls the zakat of the jadha'a while he does not own it but owns a hiqqa, the hiqqa is accepted from him with two ewes if they prove easy for him, or twenty dirhams; upon whom falls the zakat of the hiqqa while he owns the jadha'a, the jadha'a is accepted from him with twenty dirhams or two ewes; upon whom falls the zakat of the hiqqa without his owning it while he owns a bint labun, the bint labun is accepted from him with two ewes or twenty dirhams; upon whom falls the zakat of a bint labun while he owns a hiqqa, the hiqqa is accepted from him with twenty dirhams or two ewes; upon whom falls the zakat of a bint labun without his owning it while he owns a bint makhad, the bint makhad is accepted from him with twenty dirhams or two ewes" (al-Bukhari, 2/527, no. 1385). Al-Ayni said: "his saying 'or twenty' proves that paying values in the zakat is permitted, contrary to al-Shafi'i; and the word of Allah: 'take from their wealth a charity' sets the locus of taking in whatever is called wealth, the restriction to the ewe and its like being an addition to the Book of Allah that follows the path of abrogation, provable neither by a single report nor by analogy; the mentions of kinds only clarify the obligation named, and specifying the named shows that this is easier on the owner of livestock; do you not see that he said: for five camels a ewe, 'in' being literally an adverb of place and the kind of the ewe not found in camels: we know the intent is its value in wealth." Al-Khattabi said: "there is in it the proof that the ewe and the twenty dirhams are each an origin in itself, not a substitute, for he gave the choice by the conjunction 'or'." We answer: he has no proof of that; the choice proves that the origin is its value in wealth, as we have established ("'Umdat al-Qari", 9/17).
Discussion of this evidence: al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "the locus of the proof is accepting what is more precious than what falls due on the payer, and paying the difference of a kind other than the obligatory kind; and the reverse likewise. The majority answer that, were it so, the difference between the two would be assessed in value, sometimes rising and sometimes falling according to places and times; but the Lawgiver fixed the difference at a set amount that neither increases nor decreases: that becomes the original obligation in such a case; without the Lawgiver's fixing it, the bint makhad would be strictly due and it would not be permitted to replace her with a bint labun despite the difference" ("Fath al-Bari", 3/113). Al-Mawardi said: "it is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): 'when it reaches twenty-five, a bint makhad is due in it; if there is none, a male ibn labun' (reported by Abu Dawud (1567), al-Nasa'i (2447) and Ibn Majah (1799), and authenticated by al-Albani; and Ahmad, 4634); two proofs follow from it: the first is the command to take the ibn labun as a substitute in the absence of the bint makhad, while Abu Hanifa permits it on the basis of value even in her presence; the second is that two things are specified there in order, while Abu Hanifa permits a third, the value, doing away with the order. And it is reported from the Messenger of Allah: 'upon whom falls the zakat of the jadha'a while he does not own it but owns a hiqqa, it is taken from him and he adds two ewes if they prove easy, or twenty dirhams', with the same two proofs" (sound, cited earlier).
Al-Mawardi continues: "then the substitute was fixed in dirhams at twenty, whereas the value is not fixed by the Law, like the value of destroyed goods; only the substitute is fixed by the Law, like the blood monies: this is a third proof from the report, the strongest of them. And because he deviated from the textualized to something else, it does not suffice, like housing the poor in his house for a time whose rent would equal his zakat: that is paying a value in the zakat, and it must therefore not suffice, just as half a sa' of choice dates would not suffice for a sa' of poor dates, or one fat sheep for two thin ones; for it is a right in wealth paid as purification, whose value does not suffice, like manumission in the expiation. Were it said: yet the compensation of the hunt may be paid in value among you, the answer is: a mistake; the value is not paid, but the prescribed substitute becomes impossible without it: see, he values the compensation in dirhams, then the dirhams are spent on food, without the dirhams being paid. And because the zakat embraces an amount taken, the zakat, and an amount left aside, the nisab; once it is established that the amount left aside is not replaced by what is in its meaning, namely owning four camels equal to five, it is established that the amount taken cannot be replaced by what is in its meaning. Strictly, it is one of the amounts of the zakat: it must therefore not be replaced by what is not its substitute, even if it is in its meaning, like the nisab; and as the zakat embraces a wealth to be zakated and an amount to be paid, if the wealth to be zakated is restricted to certain riches, the amount to be paid must be so too. Strictly, it is one of the two types of zakat: it must therefore be paid from a determined wealth, like the wealth to be zakated" ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/180-181).
Ibn al-Arabi the Maliki (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "the truth about the charity is that it is a portion of wealth fixed and determined"; Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad said this. Abu Hanifa said: "it is a portion of wealth that is fixed, hence the permission of paying the value in the zakat; for he claims that the obligation and the trial lie in the diminution of wealth, the fulfillment of the right of obligation passing through specifying the deficient; that equals a duty on the amount of the deficient: the owner indeed wishes to keep his property intact by paying something else in its place; when his soul inclines to that and clings to it, the obligation cuts that tie between the heart and that portion of wealth: that portion must therefore be paid in itself."
Were it said: al-Bukhari and others reported, concerning Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and the charity: "upon whom falls the zakat of a bint makhad while he does not own it but owns a bint labun, it is accepted from him, and the collector adds for him twenty dirhams or two ewes"; the answer is that our scholars answered it in four ways: first, it is a single report contradicting the principles, and with them, when a single report contradicts the principles, it is void in itself; second, this hadith does not have the form of a legal fixing, since it does not say: upon whom falls the zakat of a bint makhad while he owns a bint labun, it is taken from him and he owes twenty dirhams; the analogy would be that it is taken once its value is known; but deviating from the amount to the fixing of two ewes or twenty dirhams proves that it belongs to worship; third, this is permitted only in the compensation, by the necessity of the variation of years, without any necessity of admitting it at the origin, which remains as it is; fourth, the letter of Umar on the charity, reported by Malik and applied in the lands and provinces, is preferable to the letter of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, which came through a single chain and was perhaps issued for a specific case ("Ahkam al-Qur'an", 2/520).
Shaykh Atiyya Salim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "as for the compensation between the jadha'a and the musninna, or the hiqqa, and so on, in camels, by two ewes or twenty dirhams, prescribed in the hadith of Anas in the chapter of the ages cited earlier, it is no proof of accepting the value in zakat al-fitr; for the text of the hadith is: upon whom falls a fixed age which he does not own, while he owns one higher or lower: fairness between the owner and the poor fixed the difference to avoid injustice, without leaving the origin; there is in it no independent taking of value, but taking what exists, followed by compensating the shortfall. Had the value sufficed by itself, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would have stated it; and this mechanism occurs only upon the loss of what is required; the required types in zakat al-fitr, once missing, one passes to what exists of their type, not to the value; this is clear" ("Tatimma Adwa' al-Bayan", 8/287). Ibn Hajar said in "al-Fath": "had the value been intended, it would have varied according to times and places; but it is a legal fixing."
Fifth, what Imam al-Bukhari says in the chapter of the barter in the zakat: "the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: give in charity, even from your jewelry" (reported by al-Bukhari here in suspended form (2/525), and connected at no. 1397 ; Muslim 1000). Al-Bukhari says: "he did not except from this the obligatory zakat, and the woman threw her earring and her necklace, with gold and silver not being distinguished from merchandise" ("Sahih al-Bukhari", 2/525). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: "the locus of the proof is his saying 'her necklace' (sikhab), that is, a necklace made of musk and clove, worn on the neck; and al-Bukhari, by his well-known inductive method, holds general statements as others hold universals" ("Fath al-Bari", 3/313). Badr al-Din al-Ayni said: "this matches the title of the chapter, in his saying 'her earring and her necklace': the Prophet ordered them to charity without specifying the obligatory from the rest, then their throwing of earrings and necklaces, and his not returning them to them, prove the taking of merchandise in the zakat"; and from his words it is understood that he did not distinguish the channels of the zakat from those of voluntary charity, for the aim is worship and the recipient the poor and the needy. Al-Isma'ili said: "this is an urging to charity, even from the most precious wealth, without obligation; had it been the obligatory, he would have said: pay the zakat of your wealth." The author answers: "give in charity" means pay your charities, and they were commanded embracing the obligatory and the voluntary; this term, once unrestricted, aims at completeness, which occurs only in the obligatory; and this suspended statement is a fragment of the hadith of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that al-Bukhari reported connected, cited already in the page of the two feasts, in the chapter of the knowledge at the prayer place ("'Umdat al-Qari", 9/5-6).
This evidence was disputed. Al-Qastallani said: "his saying 'even from your jewelry' shows that it was not a charity bounded by the zakat; there is therefore no proof in it, and the unrestricted charity denotes, by usage, the voluntary" ("Irshad al-Sari"). He is answered by the words of al-Ayni cited earlier. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: "as for his angle, since the Prophet ordered the women charity that day, a command upon obligation makes it a due zakat; yet this is questionable, for were there obligation, it would be quantified and approximated, and it would not be permitted to accept whatever happens to be at hand" ("Fath al-Bari", 3/313).
Sixth, the generality of the word of Allah: "take from their wealth a charity" (Surah At-Tawbah, 103): a text that what is taken is wealth; the value is wealth, resembling the textualized. As for the clarification of the Messenger of Allah of his saying: "for every forty sheep, a ewe" (sound: Abu Dawud 1568 ; al-Tirmidhi 621), al-Sarakhsi explains that it aims at easing the owners of livestock, not at restricting the obligation, for money is scarce among them and paying from what they have is easier for them; do you not see that he said: for five camels a ewe, while "in" is literally an adverb of place and the kind of the ewe is not found in camels: we know the intent is its value in wealth; the story of the she-camel seen among the zakat camels, at which the collector grew angry, and the answer "I traded it for two camels", after which the Messenger of Allah fell silent, is only conceivable in terms of value; and Mu'adh said in his sermon in Yemen: "bring me a khamis that I may take from you in place of the charity, or in place of the dhura and barley", which is only conceivable in terms of value. The meaning is that he made the poor owner of valued wealth with the intention of the zakat, permitted as paying a camel for five camels; for the aim is to enrich the poor, according to his saying: "enrich them this day so that they need not beg"; and enrichment by the value equals that by the ewe, filling the need by the value sometimes being more manifest; we do not say that the obligatory is a right of the poor, but a right of Allah directed to him to suffice him, like the jizya, unlike gifts and sacrificial animals, in which the object of the right is the shedding of blood, which cannot be valued, and unlike prostration on the cheek and chin, which is no worship: what is not worship does not replace worship, whereas paying the value is a worship in which the need is filled ("al-Mabsut", 2/156-157 ; see also "Sharh Fath al-Qadir" of Ibn al-Humam, 2/193).
This argument was disputed by saying that the Sunna clarifies the Qur'an, and that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) specified types, saying: "for every forty sheep, a ewe" (sound, cited earlier): it is the clarification of the general of the Book of Allah, for the giving is textualized and what is given is not mentioned; its clarification therefore attaches to the general of the Book, as though Allah said: "pay the zakat of every forty by a ewe"; the ewe mentioned is thus a right of the poor by this text, and one may not busy oneself with reasonings to annul his right in the kind; the meaning is that this right is a right in wealth, fixed by ages known in the Law, and is not paid by the value, like gifts and sacrificial animals; or it is said: it is a worship attached to the locus of a kind and is not performed otherwise, as prostration, attached to the forehead and nose, is not performed on the cheek and chin; saying then that the value is licit would be a contravention of the text and a departure from the meaning of worship (see "al-Mabsut", source cited; and Imam al-Sarakhsi answered it by all of the foregoing). Imam al-Haramayn said in "al-Asalib": "the proof relied upon by our companions is that the zakat is a worship for Allah; whatever is so must follow the command of Allah" (transmitted from him in "al-Majmu'", 5/385). Yet it may be said that this is the root of the disagreement in this issue: is it a worship or a right owed to the poor? Hence Ibn Rushd says: "the root of their difference is whether the zakat is a worship or a right owed to the poor: whoever holds it to be worship judges invalid what is paid other than those kinds; whoever holds it to be a right of the poor sees no difference between the value and the kind"; and the two camps answer as indicated above ("Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/196).
Seventh, the holders of the value say: zakat al-fitr is like the jizya: its due amount is taken as its kind is taken. This argument was disputed by saying that there is no proof in it: zakat al-fitr has an aspect of worship and a link with a pillar of Islam, whereas the jizya is a penalty against a people subdued, humbled and overcome: whatever is taken from them fulfills the aim ("Sharh Fath al-Qadir", 2/193 ; "Tatimma Adwa' al-Bayan", 8/288 ; "al-Fawa'ih al-Dawani", 8/412).
Eighth, they say: since one may, by consensus, deviate from the kind to the type, by paying the zakat of his sheep with a ewe other than his sheep, or the tithe of his land with grain from another harvest, one may deviate from a type to a type; do you not see that, for the rights of men, when one cannot deviate from the kind to the type, one cannot deviate from a type to a type. The prohibitors answer: this is a reversed analogy, since the obligatory is to zakat from the type of his wealth, not from a particular item of his wealth: deviating to the value is therefore not deviating from what is due ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/179, 181 ; "al-Majmu'", 5/385-386). The prohibitors also say, according to the rule "one does not pass to the substitute except upon the loss of the substituted", that the cases cited by the permitters are conditional on the loss of the kind, and the passage from a type to another on the loss of the first type. The author of "Hada'iq al-Azhar" said: "it is due in the kind, then the type, then the value, so long as exchange is possible." Imam al-Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "this is correct, given the established proofs of the zakat being in the kind; when the kind is lacking, the type is what is closest to it, the type of a thing following it in most attributes; and when there is no type, the value suffices, for that is the utmost escape from the obligation of the zakat" ("al-Sayl al-Jarrar", 2/45). But Imam al-Sarakhsi answered that this is not a substitute: "some of our companions thought the value was a substitute, to the point of naming this issue 'the substitutes'; it is not so: going to the substitute is only allowed when the original is lacking, whereas paying the value even while the textualized kind is present in his ownership is permitted with us" ("al-Mabsut", 2/156).
The holders of the value also invoked the chapter of Ibn Abi Shayba (may Allah have mercy on him) in his "Musannaf": "on giving dirhams in zakat al-fitr", with the four athars cited earlier: the letter of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz to Adi, in Basra, taking half a dirham per person from the people of the register; the letter of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz on the charity of the fitr: half a sa' per person or its value, that is, half a dirham; the saying of al-Hasan: "there is no harm in giving dirhams in the charity of the fitr"; and Abu Ishaq saying: "I saw them giving, in the charity of Ramadan, dirhams for the value of the food" ("al-Musannaf", 2/398). The point of the evidence: Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, in the era of the successors, writes to his governor, while the successor scholars are numerous and nothing of the practice of the commander of the believers escapes them; and Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i, of the middle rank of the successors who met Ali and some of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all), affirms that this was practiced in their era, his saying "I saw them" meaning the Companions; and al-Hasan al-Basri says the same.
Second, the sayings of the holders of the second opinion, the majority who forbid giving the value in zakat al-fitr, and their proofs. Imam al-Khiraqi (may Allah have mercy on him) formulated the madhhab: "whoever gives the value, it does not suffice him." Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Abu Dawud said: Ahmad was asked, while I listened: 'may I give dirhams?', in zakat al-fitr; he said: 'I fear it would not suffice him, contrary to the Sunna of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).' Abu Talib said: Ahmad said to me: 'he does not give its value.' It was said to him: 'people claim that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz used to take the value.' He said: 'they forsake the saying of the Messenger of Allah and say: so-and-so said?' Ibn Umar said: the Messenger of Allah fixed it; Allah says: 'obey Allah and obey the Messenger' (Surah An-Nisa, 59); and he added: 'people reject the Sunnas: so-and-so said, so-and-so said.'" Ibn Qudama said: "the apparent of his madhhab is that the value does not suffice in any of the zakat, and Malik and al-Shafi'i said the same" ("al-Mughni", 4/43).
Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "his saying 'and the value is not paid': this madhhab holds absolutely, whether there is need or not, interest or not, for the fitr or otherwise. With him too: the value suffices absolutely for other than the fitr; and with him it suffices in case of need, when the prescribed is impossible or the like, a transmission reported by a group, among them the qadi in his commentary, and validated by a group, among them Ibn Tamim and Ibn Himdan, and chosen by Shaykh Taqi al-Din; it is also said: for an interest likewise, also chosen by Shaykh Taqi al-Din, and some have transmitted that it suffices in case of need."
Ibn al-Banna said in "Sharh al-Muhadhdhab": "if the zakat is an indivisible portion, its price may be spent on the poor; and likewise everything that must be sold, such as a camel unable to walk; with him the value suffices, which is the price paid to the buyer of its fruit before it becomes dates or raisins in the hands of the collector; the madhhab is that such a purchase is not valid, so the value does not suffice" ("al-Insaf", 3/656). Ibn Hubayra (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad agreed on the prohibition of paying the value in zakat al-fitr, except Abu Hanifa, who permits it" ("al-Ifsah", 1/350, 354). Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "we have mentioned that our madhhab forbids paying the value in every zakat, and Malik, Ahmad and Dawud said the same" ("al-Majmu'", 5/384). Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "paying part of the sa' in barley and part in dates does not suffice, and the value does not suffice at all; for all of that is other than what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made obligatory; and the value is not given in the rights of men without their mutual consent, whereas the zakat has no determined owner whose consent would be possible" ("al-Muhalla", 6/137).
The Maliki books, according to "Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" and others, state: "paying the value does not suffice." Al-Dasuqi states that the author followed Ibn al-Hajib and Ibn Bashir there, and that the latter was nevertheless contradicted in "al-Tawdih" as contrary to "al-Mudawwana", whose famous text is that giving the value is disliked (makruh) and not forbidden. The author of the page notes that this concerns the zakat in general; as for zakat al-fitr, the textualized reported by Ibn Qudama, al-Nawawi, Ibn Hubayra and others from Imam Malik is the invalidity. Al-Zarqani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "its value is not paid, neither in kind nor in merchandise" ("Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 1/187).
The first proof of the prohibitors: the report of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): "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" (sound, cited earlier). Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "once one deviates from that, one forsakes the obligatory; and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'for every forty sheep, a ewe', 'and for two hundred dirhams, five dirhams'; this comes as a clarification of the general of the word of Allah: 'and give the zakat' (Surah An-Nisa, 77): the ewe mentioned is the zakat commanded, and the command implies obligation." And because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fixed the charity in this manner and ordered that it be paid.