Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > Zakat al-fitr > Types of goods for zakat al-fitr: validity and choice
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
Zakat al-fitr is due as a sa' of foodstuffs specified by the Sunna: food, dates, barley, raisins, aqit (dried curdled milk) and sult (a type of huskless barley). Jurists debated the validity of some of these types, of types not mentioned in the texts, which type is best, whether the payer may choose between them, and the exact size of the Prophet's sa' (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This page gathers the positions of the four schools, their evidence and the sayings of the classical references.
The basis of the chapter lies in the reports of the Companions that specify the types paid:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "We used to give zakat al-fitr during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): a sa' of food, a sa' of dates, a sa' of barley or a sa' of raisins." Then when Muawiya came and the Syrian samar dates appeared, he said: "I see that two mudds of these equal a sa'."Bukhari 1437 ; Muslim 984
Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made zakat al-fitr obligatory: a sa' of dates or a sa' of barley, due from the slave and the free man, the male and the female, the young and the old among the Muslims; and he commanded that it be paid before the people go out to the prayer."Authentic hadith, cited above
The types whose payment is disputed give rise to two questions.
Aqit is curdled milk that has been dried and hardened, used in cooking ("al-Nihaya" by Ibn al-Athir, 1/75). The jurists differed over paying it in zakat al-fitr into two views.
First view: aqit may be paid. This is the madhhab of the Malikis, and the correct position among the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis ("al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/358 ; "al-Muwatta'", 1/284 ; "al-Dhakhira", 3/168 ; "Mawahib al-Jalil", 3/260 ; "al-Muntaqa" by al-Baji, 2/188 ; "al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/384 ; "Sharh Muslim" by al-Nawawi, 7/62 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/109 ; "'Umdat al-Qari'", 9/115 ; "Sharh al-Zarkashi", 1/402 ; "al-Mubdi'", 2/394 ; "al-Rawd al-Murbi'", 1/392 ; "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat", 1/442 ; "Kashshaf al-Qina'", 2/253 ; "Sharh al-Zarqani on al-Muwatta'", 2/199 ; "Matalib Uli al-Nuha", 2/111).
Imam al-Zarqani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Malik permitted paying it as aqit" ("Sharh al-Muwatta'", 2/199).
Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) reports two paths on aqit, cited by the author ("al-Majmu'") and his companions: the first is that of Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi, who ruled definitively for its validity on the basis of the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri; the second involves two opinions, the more correct being that it suffices by virtue of the hadith, the other holding that it does not suffice because the 'ushr is not due on it, so that it resembles meat and milk. On this second path, Qadi Abu Hamid al-Marrudhi adopted the first opinion, since the hadith is authentic without contradiction. The madhhab decided by the majority: no difference, for the validity of aqit, between the people of the desert and the city dwellers ("al-Majmu'", 6/109).
Ibn Muflih (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Aqit appears in one of the two narrations: this is the madhhab ruled on by most of our companions, on the basis of the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri; the second narration rejects it, and it is the view chosen by Abu Bakr (al-Khiraqi), because it is a type on which zakat is not due: it therefore does not suffice, even if other foodstuffs exist" ("al-Mubdi'", 2/394-395).
Those who affirm its validity rely on the Sunna:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "We used to pay zakat al-fitr as a sa' of food, a sa' of barley, a sa' of dates, a sa' of aqit or a sa' of raisins."Bukhari 1435 ; Muslim 985
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "During the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), we used to pay zakat al-fitr for every young and old, free man or slave, as a sa' of food, a sa' of aqit, a sa' of barley, a sa' of dates or a sa' of raisins. We never stopped paying it thus until Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan came for Hajj or 'umra; he addressed the people from the pulpit and said among other things: "I see that two mudds of Syrian dates equal a sa' of dates." The people followed him. Abu Sa'id said: "As for me, I shall keep paying it as I used to pay it, for as long as I live.""Muslim 985
The purport of these two hadiths: they point out the types from which zakat al-fitr is paid, and aqit is explicitly among them; it is therefore permissible to pay it, like the other specified types.
Second view: it is not permissible to pay aqit in zakat al-fitr except on the basis of its value (qima). This is the madhhab of the Hanafis ("al-Mabsut" by al-Sarakhsi, 3/114 ; "Bada'i' al-Sana'i'", 2/73 ; "al-Ikhtiyar li-Ta'lil al-Mukhtar", 1/132 ; "al-'Inaya Sharh al-Hidaya", 3/245 ; "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq", 2/273 ; "Hashiyat Ibn Abidin", 2/365).
Al-Sarakhsi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Aqit is paid among us on the basis of its value" ("al-Mabsut", 3/114). And al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him): "As for aqit, its value is what counts: it suffices only on that basis" ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'", 2/73).
The Hanafis argued their view rationally: aqit is not established by any reliable text; what is not established by a text can only be paid on the basis of value, like the other goods that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not mention expressly ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'", 2/73). Al-Sarakhsi adds that the school's companions hold the hadith of Abu Sa'id to be anomalous (shadhdh), not transmitted in the famous reports, and that on the model of such a report it is not permissible to impose an estimation on a matter that affects everyone: the criterion therefore remains value; if the aqit is worth half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of barley, it suffices, otherwise not ("al-Mabsut", 3/114).
The second question is the payment of flour (daqiq) and sawiq (roasted grain meal). The scholars differed into two views.
First view: flour and sawiq may be paid. This is the madhhab of the Hanafis and the Hanbalis ("al-Mabsut", 3/113 ; "al-Hidaya Sharh al-Bidaya", 1/116 ; "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq", 2/273 ; "al-Jawhara al-Nayyira", 1/134 ; "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq", 1/309 ; "al-Mughni", 4/41 ; "Sharh al-Zarkashi", 3/322 ; "I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in", 3/12 ; "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat", 3/176).
Al-Marghinani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The fitra is half a sa' of wheat, flour or sawiq" ("al-Hidaya Sharh al-Bidaya", 1/116). And Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him): "Flour may be paid: Ahmad stated it expressly; likewise sawiq" ("al-Mughni", 4/41).
Those who affirm their validity rely on the Sunna and on reason. The Sunna first, with the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him):
"We paid nothing during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) except a sa' of dates, a sa' of barley, a sa' of raisins, a sa' of flour, a sa' of aqit or a sa' of sult." Then Sufyan doubted and said: "flour or sult".Abu Dawud 1618 ; an-Nasa'i 2514, the wording being an-Nasa'i's
The addition "or a sa' of flour" is judged weak; Shaykh al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) holds in "Irwa' al-Ghalil" (3/338) that it is "good and authentic" (hasan sahih), without the mention of flour. As for sult, it is a kind of huskless barley: for al-Jawhari and Ibn Faris, a barley variety with a fine husk and small grains; for al-Azhari, a grain between wheat and barley, without husk, like wheat to the touch and like barley in nature and freshness ("al-Misbah al-Munir", 1/284).
Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded us to pay the zakat of Ramadan: a sa' of food, for the young and the old, the free and the slave. Whoever paid sult, he accepted it from him, and I think he added: whoever paid flour, he accepted it from him, and whoever paid sawiq, he accepted it from him."Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih 2415
These two hadiths mention flour and sawiq among the valid types: it is therefore permissible to pay them in zakat al-fitr. Added to this is the Prophet's saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Enrich them this day from having to beg" (a weak hadith). It contains a command to enrich the poor, which is better achieved with flour than with anything else: it is therefore permissible to pay it.
Two rational arguments confirm this validity. The first: flour and sawiq are parts of the grain, which can be measured by volume and stored; they are therefore valid like the grain before milling, for milling only separates its parts and spares the poor the effort, like one who removes the date pits before paying them ("al-Mughni", 4/42). The second: the purpose of zakat al-fitr is to fill the needy person's need and enrich him to the point of no longer begging, as the Lawgiver said; this goal is better achieved with flour, whose benefit reaches him sooner ("al-Mabsut", 3/113). Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) sums it up: "The purpose is to fill the poor's lack on the day of Eid and to cover them with what the people of their land eat; on this basis, paying flour suffices, even if the hadith on it is not authentic" ("I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in", 3/12).
Second view: it is not permissible to pay flour or sawiq. This is the view of the Malikis and the Shafi'is ("al-Mudawwana al-Kubra", 2/357 ; "al-Dhakhira", 32/169 ; "al-Taj wa-l-Iklil", 3/273 ; "al-Muntaqa" by al-Baji, 2/190 ; "al-Majmu'", 9/110 ; "Tarh al-Tathrib", 4/49).
It is reported in "al-Mudawwana al-Kubra": Malik was asked, "What of flour and sawiq?" He replied: "They do not suffice" (2/357). And al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him): "Al-Shafi'i and his companions said: neither flour nor sawiq suffices, just as the payment of value does not suffice" ("al-Majmu'", 6/110).
Two rational arguments support this refusal. The first: flour and sawiq are not established by any sahih hadith, while the specified types, being grains, fulfil purposes that flour and sawiq do not; so one pays specified types ("al-Majmu'", 6/108 ; "Mughni al-Muhtaj", 1/408). The second: a sa' of flour does not equal a sa' of grain in quantity, because grain, once milled, swells; zakat al-fitr is a fixed measure, and the volume of flour is not fixed; permitting flour by volume would depart from the measure fixed by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and lead to groping and guesswork, contrary to the spirit of zakat; the name "sa'" would no longer apply, whereas the Prophet tied its ruling to that name ("al-Muntaqa" by al-Baji, 2/189).
Third debate: paying types not mentioned in the texts when they form part of the land's staple food. The scholars differed into three views.
First view: it is permissible to pay these types if they are the land's staple food. This is the madhhab of the Malikis and the Shafi'is, and of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim; Shaykh al-Islam also reported it from Imam Ahmad; it is the view of most scholars ("Balghat al-Salik", 1/437 ; "Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/387 ; "al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya", 1/76 ; "al-Muntaqa" by al-Baji, 2/189 ; "al-Taj wa-l-Iklil", 2/375 ; "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 2/232 ; "Tarh al-Tathrib", 4/48-49 ; "al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/379 ; "al-Muhadhdhab", 1/165 ; "Rawdat al-Talibin", 2/303-304 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/108, 112 ; "Kifayat al-Akhyar", 1/189 ; "Mughni al-Muhtaj", 3/467 ; "Asna al-Matalib", 1/391-392 ; "al-Insaf", 3/182 ; "I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in", 3/12-13), each of these groups however adding its own details.
The Malikis hold that one pays from the land's staple food: lentils, fava beans, wheat, barley, sult, dates, aqit and millet. Beyond these types nothing suffices, unless the people consume that food while abandoning the previous ones; and it is not permissible to pay anything other than the staple food unless it is better, as with one whose people eat sorghum and who pays wheat. If meat is paid, satiety is the measure: if a sa' of wheat, once baked, feeds two people, he pays meat enough to fill two ("Balghat al-Salik", 1/437).
The Shafi'is hold that one pays from a type on which the 'ushr is due, even if other foods exist; the obligation falls on the land's staple food. It is said: on his own staple food. It is said: he is given the choice between the foods, the higher sufficing, not the lower ("Mughni al-Muhtaj", 3/427 ; "Asna al-Matalib", 1/391-392 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/108, 112).
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) reports: "Our companions said: the type of the fitra is any grain on which the 'ushr is due, and aqit suffices according to the madhhab. The most correct view is that it is obligatory to pay the staple food of his land; the second: the food he himself eats; the third: the choice between the two. If he moves from the obligatory to what is higher, it suffices; if he moves to what is lower, it does not suffice" ("Sharh Muslim", 7/61). He adds: if the land's staple food is required and the people eat several foods with none predominating, he pays whichever he wishes, and it is best to choose the finest of them, the apparent meaning of the madhhab and the sayings of its companions going in this direction, and Allah knows best.
A detail: if the criterion is taken to be the land's staple food, al-Ghazali said in "al-Wasit" that it is the land's staple food at the time the fitra becomes due, not throughout the year, and in "al-Wajiz": on the day of Eid. Al-Rafi'i said: "This statement I have seen from no one else." Al-Nawawi concludes that this report is strange, as al-Rafi'i said, and that the correct position is the food of the year ("al-Majmu'", 6/113 ; "Rawdat al-Talibin", 2/304-305).
Its supporters rely on the Sunna and on reason. The Sunna first: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Enrich them this day from having to beg" (a weak hadith). The purport: the Prophet commands enriching the recipients of zakat al-fitr; enrichment comes through food; therefore any food may be paid.
The reason: analogy of the unspecified type to the specified type, through the shared purpose of sustenance (iqtiyat); the specified type may be paid by consensus, so likewise the unspecified one, for the purpose is to fill the poor's lack on the day of Eid and cover them with the food of the people of their land ("al-Muntaqa" by Abu al-Walid al-Baji, 2/188 ; "Mughni al-Muhtaj", 3/427 ; "I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in", 3/12).
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) treated the question at length: "The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fixed zakat al-fitr as a sa' of dates, a sa' of barley, a sa' of raisins or a sa' of aqit, and such were the staple foods of the people of Medina. For the inhabitants of a land or quarter whose food is different, a sa' of their own food is due: sorghum, rice, figs or any other grain. If their food is not grain, such as milk, meat or fish, they pay their fitra from their food, whatever it may be: this is the view of the majority of scholars and the correct position that cannot be contradicted, for the purpose is to fill the poor's lack on the day of Eid and cover them with the food of the people of their land. On this basis, flour suffices even without an authentic hadith."
He continues: "As for bread and prepared dishes, they may be more useful to the poor because of the lesser effort and cost; but grain may be more useful to them, for its long keeping and for what can be had from it that cannot be had from bread; all the more so if bread and dishes abound among the poor, for they spoil and cannot be stored. One may object: that does not matter, for the purpose is to enrich them on that great day from having to beg, according to the Prophet's saying (a weak hadith): "Enrich them this day from having to beg." He specified those types because the people were not accustomed to preparing dishes on the day of Eid: their food that day was that of the rest of the year. Thus, when their food on the day of the sacrifice was the meat of the sacrificial animals, they were commanded to feed from it the contented and the beggar. So if a people's custom is to prepare dishes on the day of Eid, it is permitted to them, rather prescribed, to cover the poor from their dishes: this is an admissible reading, and Allah knows best" ("I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in", 3/12-13).
Second view: it is not permissible to pay types not mentioned in the texts except on the basis of their value. This is the madhhab of the Hanafis ("al-Mabsut" by al-Sarakhsi, 3/114 ; "Bada'i' al-Sana'i'", 2/73 ; "Mukhtasar al-Quduri", p. 61 ; "al-Ikhtiyar", 1/132 ; "al-'Inaya", 3/245 ; "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq", 2/273).
Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The validity of what is not mentioned in a text is obtained only on the basis of value, like the other goods that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not mention expressly" ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'", 2/73). And al-Sarakhsi: "What is not mentioned in a text is assimilated to the specified type on the basis of value, for this does not annul the fixed measure stated in the text" ("al-Mabsut", 3/114).
The Hanafis detail: everything that is not among these specified types, whether grains such as lentils and rice, or other foods such as milk and cheese, is settled against the value of the specified types. Whoever wishes to pay zakat al-fitr in lentils first values half a sa' of wheat; if its value is ten junayhat, for instance, he pays lentils worth ten junayhat; likewise for rice, milk, cheese and the rest of the foods the Lawgiver did not mention expressly. Their argument: the amount to be paid of an unspecified type is unknown, and estimation is not made by mere opinion; it is therefore not permissible to pay it in kind, but only on the basis of value ("al-Mabsut", 3/114).
Third view: it is not permissible to pay unspecified types when one is able to pay specified types, and it becomes permissible when unable to pay them. This is the madhhab of the Hanbalis ("al-Mughni", 4/40 ; "al-Insaf", 3/181-182).
Al-Mardawi said: "His words 'and nothing else suffices' mean: if one of these types exists, another does not suffice, even if it is his food. This is the correct position, and it is one of the school's singular rulings" ("al-Insaf", 3/181-182). Al-Khiraqi wrote: "Whoever can obtain dates, raisins, wheat, barley or aqit and pays something else, it does not suffice."
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) comments: "The apparent meaning of the madhhab is that when able, he may not move to something else, whether what he turns to is his land's food or not. Abu Bakr (al-Khiraqi) said: another view is plausible: in place of the five, according to the apparent meaning of the hadith, he gives a sa' of food; and food can be wheat, barley and everything measured by volume. Both views are plausible; the more balanced is that only the five are permitted, unless they cannot be found, in which case he gives what stands in their place" ("al-Mughni", 4/40).
The Hanbalis also rely on the Sunna:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made zakat al-fitr obligatory: a sa' of dates or a sa' of barley, upon every free man or slave, male or female, among the Muslims.Bukhari 1433 ; Muslim 984
We used to give, during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), a sa' of food, a sa' of dates, a sa' of barley or a sa' of raisins.Bukhari 1437 ; Muslim 985
We used to pay zakat al-fitr as a sa' of food, a sa' of barley, a sa' of dates, a sa' of aqit or a sa' of raisins.Bukhari 1435 ; Muslim 985
The purport of these hadiths: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fixed zakat al-fitr on known types; paying something else while able to pay these is a deviation from the specified, and is therefore not permitted. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) concludes: "The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fixed zakat al-fitr on a counted number of types, so it is not permitted to deviate from them, any more than to pay the value. For the mention of the types after the fixing explains the obligation; what is attached to the explanation falls under the explanation: these types are therefore themselves obligatory, and payment must be made from them. Whoever pays something else deviates from the specified: it does not suffice, like the value, and like one who paid the zakat of wealth in a type other than its own. Enrichment is achieved by paying the specified type, so the two reports do not contradict each other, both indicating the obligation to enrich by paying one of the fixed types" ("al-Mughni", 4/40).
Al-Zarkashi (may Allah have mercy on him) concludes: "This is the well-known, famous madhhab, according to the apparent meaning of the hadiths of Ibn Umar and Abu Sa'id: their apparent sense is that he obliged nothing else; to turn away from it is therefore to turn away from the specified" ("Sharh al-Zarkashi", 1/404). The second argument is rational: analogy of what is paid in zakat al-fitr to what is paid in the zakat of wealth, through the shared obligatoriness; what is paid of the zakat of wealth must be of the wealth's own type, and so it is with zakat al-fitr. As for the permissibility of unspecified types when the specified ones are unavailable, it falls under analogy by the shared purpose of sustenance, the specified types being payable by consensus.
The scholars differed over the best of the specified types into two views.
First view: the best of the specified types is wheat (al-hinta). This is the madhhab of the Hanafis and the Shafi'is ("Majmu' al-Anhar", 1/339 ; "Hashiyat Ibn Abidin", 2/366 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/113 ; "al-Ifsah", 1/351 ; "al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/378).
Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The words 'paying the value, that is, the dirhams, according to the doctrine endorsed for fatwa' stand against what the Mudmarat contain: paying wheat is preferable in all circumstances, years of hardship or otherwise, for that conforms to the Sunna, and it is on this that the fatwa is given" ("Hashiyat Ibn Abidin", 2/366).
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) reports two famous paths for ranking higher over lower, the more correct being greater fitness for food, the second greater value; both vary with the foods and the lands, and al-Rafi'i notes that superiority by value is the more common. According to the first path: "wheat is better than barley, without disagreement, and the majority add that wheat is better than dates and raisins", as Qadi Abu al-Tayyib reported from the companions. The author of the "Hawi" notes two paths on wheat and dates: the first is that the date is preferable and better, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to pay it and such was the practice of the people of Medina, the view of Ibn Umar, Malik and Ahmad; the second, to which al-Shafi'i inclined and which Ali ibn Abi Talib and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh held, is that wheat is preferable; and "to say that the superiority varies with the lands would be plausible". The famous position is the preference for wheat without restriction ("al-Majmu'", 6/112-113).
Their proof from the report (athar): Abu Mijlaz said: "I said to Ibn Umar: may Allah multiply the good! Wheat is better than dates. He replied: 'I give what my companions used to give: they followed a path, and I wish to follow it.'" Reported by Ibn Zanjawayh in "al-Amwal" (5/141) and Ibn Hazm in "al-Muhalla" (6/127), by the most authentic route. The purport is Abu Mijlaz's explicit statement to Ibn Umar that wheat is the best of goods.
Two rational arguments: on the one hand, it is agreed that less than a sa' of dates does not suffice, while wheat is disputed, some scholars accepting half a sa'; the safer course is what bears the consensus, namely that nothing less than a sa' is paid ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/378). On the other hand, wheat nourishes more and wards off the poor person's need better than any other type: it is therefore the best ("al-Mughni", 4/40).
Second view: the best of the specified types is the date. This is the madhhab of the Malikis and the Hanbalis ("al-Ifsah", 1/351 ; "al-Mughni", 4/39 ; "al-Insaf", 9/232 ; "Sharh al-Zarqani", 2/201 ; "Nayl al-Awtar", 4/252).
Ibn Muflih (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The best of payments is the date, without restriction: Ahmad stated it expressly" ("al-Mubdi'", 2/397). And Ibn Qudama: "Abu Abdillah's (Ahmad's) choice is to pay dates; Malik said the same, and Ibn al-Mundhir reported that Malik preferred paying the 'ajwa (a date of Medina)" ("al-Mughni", 4/39).
Their proofs from the reports: Nafi' reported: "Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) used to pay dates; when they ran short among the people of Medina, he paid barley..." (an authentic hadith, cited above). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) draws from it "the indication that the date is the best thing to pay in zakat al-fitr" ("Fath al-Bari", 3/376 ; see "Sharh al-Zarqani", 2/251). The hadith of Abu Mijlaz cited above points the same way: its apparent sense is that a number of the Companions paid dates and that Ibn Umar loved to follow them and follow their path ("al-Mughni", 4/39). The reason: the date is at once food and sweetness, easier to consume and less costly; whatever combines these qualities is preferable ("al-Mughni", 4/39 ; "al-Mubdi'", 2/397).
The jurists differed over the valid types: are they open to the payer's choice, or must he pay what predominates in his food? Two views.
First view: the fitra is paid on the basis of choice: the payer may pay whatever he wishes of the specified types. This is the madhhab of the Hanafis and the Hanbalis, and one of the views of the Shafi'is ("al-Bahr al-Ra'iq", 2/273 ; "al-Jawhara al-Naqi", 4/172 ; "Hashiyat Ibn Abidin on al-Durr al-Mukhtar", 2/463 ; "al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/379 ; "al-Muhadhdhab", 1/165 ; "Rawdat al-Talibin", 2/303, 305 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/108, 112 ; "Tarh al-Tathrib", 4/48-49 ; "al-Mughni", 4/42).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Whichever of the specified categories he pays, it is valid, even if it is not his food" ("al-Mughni", 4/42).
Their proofs from the Sunna: the hadith of Ibn Umar cited above, "a sa' of dates or a sa' of barley" (authentic), and that of Abu Sa'id: "a sa' of food, a sa' of dates, a sa' of barley or a sa' of raisins" (authentic), and in a narration: "or a sa' of aqit" (authentic). The purport: the two hadiths contain the particle "or" (aw), which indicates choice; one acts on the apparent wording of the text; if the apparent requires choice, it must be acted upon, and one may not depart from it without evidence, and no evidence departs from it: it is therefore permissible to choose between the types, acting on the apparent ("al-Mughni", 4/42).
Two rational arguments. The first: the payer has turned to another specified category, which is valid as if he had moved to the higher; enrichment is achieved by paying a food from the types, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave the choice between dates, raisins and aqit although neither raisins nor aqit were the food of the people of Medina: the type paid therefore need not be the payer's own food ("al-Mughni", 4/42). The second: zakat al-fitr is mutual support (muwasat); choice in it is easier, and treating all the types alike is gentler ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/379).
Second view: the matter is one of detail: the payer must pay what predominates in his food among the types, if one of them predominates, or if he eats only one type; if several foods are equal, the choice is his. This is the madhhab of the Malikis and the Shafi'is ("Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil", 2/232 ; "Mawahib al-Jalil", 2/373 ; "al-Sharh al-Saghir with Balghat al-Salik", 1/438 ; "Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/387 ; "Tarh al-Tathrib", 4/48-49 ; "al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya", 1/76 ; "al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/379 ; "Rawdat al-Talibin", 2/304-305 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/108, 112).
Al-Dardir said: "It is obligatory to pay from what predominates in his food among these nine categories; paying anything else does not suffice, nor these categories if his food is other, unless he pays the finer one, as with one whose staple food is barley and who pays wheat. 'Unless his food is other', that is, other than these categories: lentils, meat, fava beans, chickpeas. If one food predominates, paying it is obligatory; if they are equal, he chooses" ("al-Sharh al-Saghir", 1/438).
Al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) reports that al-Shafi'i's statement on stored foods varies: order (tartib) or choice; he has two views. The first, stated in some of his books, is choice: the payer chooses among them all, and whichever category he pays, it suffices. The second is reported in the minority of the sources, while al-Shafi'i's text here and in most of the books is that it is by order, without choice, the criterion being the staple food. Now, is the staple food of his land considered, or his own? Two paths: one, apparent in his text here and in "al-Umm", held by Abu Sa'id al-Istakhri and Abu Ubayd ibn Harbawayh, considers his own staple food, according to the word of Allah:
"Out of the average of what you feed your families"
Surah Al-Ma'idah, 89
and because he is personally addressed for the obligation upon him. The other path, that of Abu al-Abbas ibn Surayj and Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi, considers the staple food of his land: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) addressed the people of Medina as a whole, in terms of their staple foods, and taking the land's staple food as the criterion brings ease and leniency, while taking each individual's brings hardship and constraint; what leads to ease in this support is more fitting.
Whoever therefore moves from the staple food to what is not, and pays it in his zakat al-fitr, falls into two cases. The first: he pays less than his staple food, as one who pays barley while his staple food is dates: it does not suffice, for it is not what was due him. The second: he pays something dearer than his staple food, as one who pays wheat while his staple food is barley; two paths on its validity: the first, it does not suffice, for it is not what was due him, like one who paid barley in place of wheat, or dirhams in place of dinars; the second, which is al-Shafi'i's text, it suffices, for it is dearer than what was due him, like one upon whom a two-year-old she-goat (sinn) is due and who pays an older one ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/378-379).
Their proofs from the Sunna: the Prophet's saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Enrich them this day from having to beg" (a weak hadith). The purport: enrichment comes through what suffices a person of the staple food; if the payer had the choice, he could pay what is not the staple food, and it would not dispense from it; by paying from the staple food the purpose is met ("al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/378). And the hadith of Ibn Umar: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made zakat al-fitr obligatory: a sa' of dates or a sa' of barley..." (authentic, cited above), and that of Abu Sa'id (authentic, cited above). The two hadiths contain the particle "or", whose meaning is: if the staple food is such, pay it; or such, pay it: it is a variety of goods, whence the obligation of the land's staple food ("al-Dhakhira", 3/169).
Cause of the difference: Ibn Rushd said: "As to what it is due from: some held that it is due in wheat, in dates, in barley, in raisins or in aqit, on the basis of the choice given to the payer. Others held that what is due him is the land's staple food, or the payer's own food if he cannot obtain the land's food: this is the doctrine reported by Abd al-Wahhab. The cause of their difference is the interpretation of the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: 'We used to pay, during the time of the Messenger of Allah, zakat al-fitr as a sa' of food, a sa' of barley, a sa' of aqit or a sa' of dates...' (authentic, cited above). Whoever understood choice from it held every type to be valid; whoever understood that the variety of what is paid is not due to permission, but to the consideration of the payer's food or the land's staple food, adopted the second view" ("Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/387).
The obligatory amount specified by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is a sa'. The jurists agree that the Prophet's sa' is four mudds: Ibn al-Rif'a said, "The sa' is four mudds, by consensus" ("al-Idah wa-l-Tibyan", p. 63), and Zayn al-Din al-Iraqi: "They agree that the sa' is four mudds" ("Tarh al-Tathrib", 2/82). The mudd is a measure that, among the people of the Hijaz, equals a ratl and a third, that is, a quarter of the sa' since the sa' is five ratls and a third; it also equals the filling of both hands of a man of average build ("al-Misbah al-Munir", 2/566). They did, however, differ over the sa's value in weight: two views.
First view: the Prophet's sa' is five ratls and a third by the Iraqi ratl. This is the madhhab of the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, and of Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis ("Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama'" by al-Tahawi, 1/455 ; "al-Mabsut", 3/113 ; "Tuhfat al-Fuqaha'", 1/338 ; "Bada'i' al-Sana'i'", 2/59, 73 ; "Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" by Ibn Battal, 1/371 ; "Mawahib al-Jalil", 2/365 ; "Tarh al-Tathrib", 4/51-52 ; "al-Hawi al-Kabir", 3/382 ; "al-Ifsah", 1/345 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/123 ; "al-Mughni", 4/36 ; "Majmu' al-Fatawa" by Ibn Taymiyya, 21/54-55 ; "al-Qawa'id al-Nuraniyya", 1/88).
Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The sa' is five ratls and a third of a ratl" ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'", 2/59 ; "al-Hidaya Sharh al-Bidaya", 1/117). Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The most apparent is that the sa' is five ratls and a third Iraqi, whether the sa' of food or of water: this is the view of the majority of scholars, against Abu Hanifa" ("al-Ikhtiyarat al-Fiqhiyya", 1/19). Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The sa' that suffices in the fitra among us is five ratls and a third by the Baghdad ratl; the majority of the early and the later scholars said so" ("al-Majmu'", 6/123) ; al-Mawardi notes that Malik, Abu Yusuf, Ahmad, the jurists of the Two Sanctuaries and most of the Iraqi jurists said so. Al-Zarkashi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The sa', according to the Prophet's sa' (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), is five ratls and a third" ("Sharh al-Zarkashi", 1/402). Ibn Hubayra (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "They differed over the size of the sa'; Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad said: five ratls and a third by the Iraqi ratl" ("al-Ifsah", 1/346).
Their proofs from the Sunna and the reports. The Sunna first:
Abdullah ibn Ma'qil said: I sat with Ka'b ibn Ujra (may Allah be pleased with him) and asked him about the compensation (fidiya). He said: "It was revealed concerning me alone, and it applies to you all. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was carried to me while lice covered my face. He said: I did not think the pain had reached you to this extent, or: the trial had brought you so far. Do you have a sacrificial animal? I said: no. He said: Then fast three days, or feed six poor people, half a sa' for each poor person."Bukhari 1721 ; Muslim 1201
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw Ka'b ibn Ujra while lice were falling on his face and said: "Do your vermin trouble you?" He said: yes. The Messenger of Allah ordered him to shave, while he was at al-Hudaybiya and they were hoping to enter Mecca; Allah then revealed the compensation, and the Messenger of Allah ordered him "to feed a farq among six poor people, or offer a sacrificial animal, or fast three days".Bukhari 1527, 1722, 3927 ; Muslim 1201
The purport: the first hadith contains "feed six poor people, half a sa' for each", that is, three sa's in total; the second orders "feeding a farq among six poor people", and the farq equals three sa's according to Muslim's version: it is the same event, so the farq is three sa's, that is, sixteen ratls, and the sa', being a third of it, is five ratls and a third. Ibn Qutayba (may Allah have mercy on him) sums it up: "The farq is sixteen ratls; the sa' is a third of the farq: five ratls and a third; the mudd: a ratl and a third" ("Gharib al-Hadith", 1/8, 12 ; see "Tanqih al-Tahqiq", 3/133).
It was said to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "O Messenger of Allah, our sa' is the smallest of sa's and our mudd the smallest of mudds." He said: "O Allah, bless us in our sa', our mudd, our little and our much, and give us, along with the blessing, a second blessing. Ibrahim, Your servant and friend, invoked You for the people of Mecca; and I am Your servant and messenger: I invoke You for the people of Medina just as Ibrahim invoked You for the people of Mecca."al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra 7513 ; Ibn Hibban in his Sahih 3284
The purport: Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Companions declared their sa' to be the smallest of sa's and their mudd the smallest of mudds, and the Messenger of Allah confirmed it without disapproving, merely invoking blessing; now the sa' of five ratls and a third is smaller than the sa' of eight ratls (Abu Hanifa's view, below): the sa' is therefore five ratls and a third. Abu Hatim Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) draws the conclusion: "The Chosen One's silence (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when they said 'our sa' is the smallest of sa's' is a clear statement that the sa' of the people of Medina is the smallest of sa's. The people of knowledge, from the Companions to our day, have not differed over the sa' and its size, except between the people of the Hijaz and the Iraqis: the former hold it to be five ratls and a third, the latter eight ratls. Since there is no other disagreement, it is correct that the Prophet's sa' (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was five ratls and a third, since it is the smallest of sa's; thus collapses the claim of whoever asserts it to be eight ratls, without any established evidence" ("Sahih Ibn Hibban", 8/79).
Imam al-Bayhaqi reports from al-Husayn ibn al-Walid: "Abu Yusuf returned from Hajj and we visited him. He said: 'I wish to open for you a door of knowledge that concerns me; I looked into it: I came to Medina and asked about the sa'. I was told: our sa' is the sa' of the Messenger of Allah. I asked: what is your proof? They said: we will bring you the proof tomorrow. In the morning some fifty shaykhs, sons of the Muhajirun and the Ansar, came to me, each carrying his sa' under his garment, and each related from his father or from his household that it is the sa' of the Messenger of Allah. I looked: they were all identical. I measured them: five ratls and a third, minus a little. I judged the matter strong: I abandoned Abu Hanifa's view on the sa' and adopted the view of the people of Medina.'" Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says in "Talkhis al-Habir" (2/186) that al-Bayhaqi reported this account with a good chain. It shows a clear proof: some fifty sa's, all identical, weighing five ratls and a third, transmitted in Medina by an unbroken chain, the sons relating from their fathers that this is the Prophet's sa' or mudd ("al-Muntaqa" by Abu al-Walid al-Baji, 2/182).
Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "As for the people of the Hijaz, there is no disagreement among them, as far as I know: the sa' among them is five ratls and a third; their scholar and their ignorant man alike know it, it is sold in their markets, and knowledge of it has been handed down generation after generation" ("al-Amwal", 1/623).
Proof from the report: Abu Ubayd reports from Aslam, the freed client of Umar, that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) "levied the jizya on holders of gold at four dinars, with the Muslims' provisioning of two mudds of wheat and three qists of oil per person per month; and on holders of silver at forty dirhams and fifteen sa's per person; I do not remember what was said about the wdak, the meat fat that drips from it ("al-Misbah al-Munir", 2/653)" ("al-Amwal", 1/623, no. 1606). Abu Ubayd deduces: "I examined this account of Umar: he equated forty dirhams with four dinars, for at the origin the dinar equals ten dirhams; likewise he equated two mudds of food with fifteen sa's, making them equivalent. I then compared the mudds and the sa's and brought them together, then assessed them by weight: the mudds weighed eighty ratls and a little more, and the fifteen sa's eighty ratls by the reckoning of the people of Medina: a small, close difference; that slight surplus comes, I think, from the difference in density and lightness between the two foods. And I found that the fifteen sa's amounted, by the Iraqis' view, to a hundred and twenty ratls: a great difference. Thereby I knew that the sa' is, by the statement of the people of the Hijaz, five ratls and a third. Then the Prophet's hadith (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) confirmed and established it: 'The measure (al-mikyal) is that of Medina, and the weight (al-mizan) that of Mecca' (sahih: Abu Dawud 3340 ; an-Nasa'i 2520). To the view that the sa' is five ratls thus combine three features: the Prophet's hadith (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the reflection on Umar's account, and the people of the Hijaz's agreement on it: what doctrine could stand against this?" ("al-Amwal", 1/623, 625).
Second view: the sa' is eight ratls by the Iraqi ratl. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Thawri and al-Hasan ibn Hayy ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'", 2/73 ; "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq", 1/309 ; "al-Mabsut", 3/113 ; "al-Kharaj" by Abu Yusuf, 1/166 ; "Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama'" by al-Tahawi, 1/455 ; "al-'Inaya", 3/244). Al-Tahawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Abu Hanifa, Muhammad, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Thawri and al-Hasan ibn Hayy said: the sa' is eight ratls by the Iraqi ratl" ("Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama'", 1/455).
Their proofs from the Sunna (hadiths judged weak by the hadith specialists):
The purport: these hadiths contain the explicit text "and bathe with a sa', that is, eight ratls"; they state the claimed figure directly. And the words "he bathed with the mudd, that is, two ratls", joined to the consensus that the sa' is four mudds, give eight ratls ("Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar", 2/50-51).
Proof from the reports: Musa ibn Talhah said: "The Meccan sa' (al-hajaji) is the sa' of Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him)" ("al-Musannaf" by Ibn Abi Shayba, 2/421, no. 10640 ; al-Tahawi, "Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar", 2/51). And from Ibrahim: "We measured the sa' of Umar: it proved Meccan, and the Meccan among them is eight ratls by the Baghdad ratl" (al-Tahawi in "Sharh Mushkil al-Athar", 2/52).
Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) sums up: "The sa', for the most of what is said about it, is eight ratls by the Iraqi ratl, as Abu Hanifa said; as for the people of the Hijaz and the jurists of hadith, such as Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad and others, it is five ratls and a third by the Iraqi ratl in their view. The exchange between Abu Yusuf and Malik over this is famous: Malik, having been asked about the size of the sa' and the mudd, had the sa's of the people of Medina brought together, and a great quantity gathered. When Abu Yusuf arrived, Malik said to one of them: where does this sa' of yours come from? He replied: my father related to me from his father that he used to pay zakat al-fitr with this sa' to the Messenger of Allah. Another said: my mother related to me from her mother that she used to pay with it, the zakat of her garden, to the Messenger of Allah. And each said the like."
And Ibn Taymiyya continues: "Malik then said to Abu Yusuf: do you think these people lie? He replied: no, by Allah, they do not lie. Malik said: then I have verified this measure with your ratl, O people of Iraq: it is five ratls and a third. Abu Yusuf said: I return to your view, O Abu Abdillah; had my companion seen what I saw, he would have returned as I returned." Ibn Taymiyya adds that this continuous transmission of the people of Medina about the size of the sa' and the mudd is famous; that a group of scholars, such as Ibn Qutayba, the qadi Abu Ya'la in his commentary, and Jaddi Abi al-Barakat, held the sa' of food to be five ratls and a third and the sa' of water eight, relying notably on the account of Aishah who used to bathe, she and the Messenger of Allah, with a farq (sixteen ratls); but the majority hold the sa' and the mudd identical for food and water, and this is the more apparent ("Majmu' al-Fatawa", 21/54-55, 25/43 ; see "al-Qawa'id al-Nuraniyya", 1/88). Zayn al-Din al-Iraqi (may Allah have mercy on him) confirms: Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad and the scholars of the Hijaz hold five ratls and a third by the Baghdad ratl, and Abu Hanifa with Muhammad eight ratls by the same ratl; Abu Yusuf held as they did, then returned to the view of Malik and the majority after his debate with Malik in Medina, where the latter showed him the sa's the people of Medina inherited from their forebears down to the Prophet's time (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); and "the unqualified mention of the sa' in the hadith shows it to be a measure known to them" ("Tarh al-Tathrib", 4/51-52).
Ibn al-Sabbagh and others (of the Hanbalis) say: "Its origin is volume (kayl); the scholars estimated it by weight (wazn) for ease of keeping." Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) nevertheless cautions: "Fixing the sa' in ratls may raise difficulty: the sa' with which payment was made in the Prophet's time (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is a known measure, whose weight varies with the food paid: sorghum, chickpeas and others. The correct position is that of al-Faraj al-Darimi among our companions: rely on volume rather than weight, and one must pay a sa' calibrated against the sa' with which payment was made in the era of the Messenger of Allah; that sa' exists, and whoever does not find it must pay an amount he is certain is not less; the estimate of five ratls and a third is approximate. Some scholars said: the sa' is four handfuls of the two hands of a man of average hands" ("Rawdat al-Talibin", 2/301-302 ; "al-Majmu'", 6/107).
Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi reports that the sa' was also compared to the volume measure of Cairo, and cites Ibn al-Rif'a in "al-Idah wa-l-Tibyan fi ma'rifat al-mikyal wa-l-mizan": "There was brought to me, from a trustworthy Allah-fearing jurist, a conical wooden mudd, without crack or loss; I was told it had been calibrated against the mudd of Shaykh Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari, shaykh of the Noble Sanctuary of Mecca, who had stated he calibrated it against a mudd for which he held the attestation that it had been compared with what had been compared to the mudd of the Messenger of Allah. I tested it with the food on which the standard falls: mash (hulled barley) and lentils; I found its volume greatly exceeding two hundred (dirhams). It seemed most likely to me that the standard was set with barley, the staple food of the people of Medina in the first generation, as the reports indicate; I therefore considered Egyptian barley, sifted and cleaned of clay, and the mentioned weight proved exact with the volume of that mudd: I weighed a hundred and seventy-three dirhams and a third of a dirham by the Egyptian dirham. Then I weighed the same quantity of barley and poured it into that mudd: it filled it exactly, without excess. Thereby appears the correctness that the Baghdad ratl is a hundred and thirty dirhams, and thereby too is verified the good assay of the dirhams then circulating in Egypt."
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) concludes in "al-Mughni": "Its origin is volume; the scholars estimated it by weight so that it might be preserved and transmitted. A number reported from Ahmad: 'The sa': I found it (equal to) five ratls and a third of wheat.' Hanbal said: Ahmad said: I took the sa' from Ibn Abi al-Nadr, and Ibn Abi al-Nadr said: I took it from Ibn Abi Dhi'b, who said: this is the Prophet's sa' (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), known in Medina."
And Ibn Qudama adds: "Ahmad said: we took lentils and measured with them, for it is the best we found for measuring, since the lentil comes away from its places; we measured and then weighed: five ratls and a third. This is the surest we found, and what appeared to us of the Prophet's sa' (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Now if it is five ratls and a third of wheat and lentils, the heaviest of grains, the other types of the fitra are lighter than they: whoever pays five ratls and a third of them therefore exceeds the sa'."
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "If he pays five ratls and a third of wheat, it does not suffice, for wheat varies: sometimes thick, sometimes light." And al-Tahawi: "He pays eight ratls of what is equal in volume and weight, namely raisins and mash; the sense of his words is that if he pays eight ratls of a food heavier than they, it does not suffice before adding what establishes that the sa' has been reached; and it is more fitting for one who pays a heavy food to take precautions and add what establishes that he has reached the sa'." End of Ibn Qudama's words (may Allah have mercy on him) ("al-Mughni", 4/36-37).
The jurists agree that the obligatory amount in dates, barley and raisins is a sa', with no disagreement on this, except for a narration from Abu Hanifa on raisins, according to which the amount there would be half a sa' ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'", 2/72 ; "al-Mabsut", 3/114 ; "al-Ikhtiyar", 1/131 ; "Tuhfat al-Fuqaha'", 1/338 ; "al-Athar", 1/64 ; "Fath al-Qadir", 2/290 ; "Sharh Muslim", 7/63 ; "Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/387 ; "al-Ifsah", 1/344 ; "al-Mughni", 4/34 ; "al-Sharh al-Saghir", 1/437). Ibn Hubayra (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "They agreed that it is a sa' of each of the five types, except Abu Hanifa, who said: half a sa' suffices for wheat alone" ("al-Ifsah", 1/344). And Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him): "The scholars agreed that one does not pay, in zakat al-fitr, less than a sa' of dates or barley" ("Bidayat al-Mujtahid", 1/387).
Evidence: the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him):
"During the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), we used to pay zakat al-fitr for every young and old, free or slave, as a sa' of food, a sa' of aqit, a sa' of barley, a sa' of dates or a sa' of raisins."Authentic hadith, cited above
The purport: the hadith contains "a sa' of barley", "a sa' of dates" and "a sa' of raisins": an explicit text on the amount of one sa' for these foods. As for raisins, the narrations from Abu Hanifa differ: "al-Jami' al-Saghir" mentions half a sa', while al-Hasan and Asad ibn Amr reported from him a sa' of raisins, which is the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad; the support of this second narration is the hadith of Abu Sa'id cited above.