A study on issues related to the alms given at the end of Ramadan, regarding its ruling and the time for its payment, and whether it is permissible to pay its value in cash?

The Shaykh : ... and we seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our own souls and from the badness of our deeds. Whoever Allah guides, no one can mislead, and whoever He misleads, no one can guide. And I bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger, , , . As for what follows:
Indeed, the best of speech is the speech of Allah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and the worst of matters are their innovations, and every innovation is a religious innovation, and every religious innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire.
On the occasion of the blessed festival, if Allah wills, I decided to make today's study about issues related to the alms given at the end of Ramadan on one hand, and other issues related to the festival prayer on the other. Among these issues is the ruling on the alms given at the end of Ramadan.
The scholars differed on its ruling. The majority hold that it is obligatory, while the Hanafis distinguished themselves from the majority by saying it is obligatory but not a specific obligation. They adopted this position because they have a school of thought that they consider a principle, which is distinguishing between a specific obligation and a general obligation. This distinction is a terminological matter unique to the Hanafis, unlike the majority of the imams. It is not appropriate for me to speak now about the reason for this distinction from the perspective of the principles of jurisprudence, as it would take up time allocated for the issues mentioned earlier. I only want to remind you that any principle established and applied in a way that contradicts the practice of the righteous predecessors is the strongest evidence that the principle is unsound. If we examine the books of the Sunnah and the books of reports that specifically focus on the statements of the Companions, we will find nothing but their saying: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) made obligatory." There are two authentic hadiths: the first is in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, narrated by Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him and his father), who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) made obligatory the alms given at the end of Ramadan, a sa' of barley or a sa' of dates," and so on. The point of this hadith is Ibn 'Umar's statement: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) made obligatory the alms given at the end of Ramadan." Therefore, it is a specific obligation.
The other hadith is that of 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father), who also said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) made obligatory the alms given at the end of Ramadan as purification for the fasting person from idle talk and obscenity, and as food for the poor." It is necessary here to complete the hadith because it is connected to some of the following issues: "and as food for the poor. Whoever pays it before the festival prayer, it is an accepted alms, and whoever pays it after the festival prayer, it is a general alms." In this hadith as well, 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, the interpreter of the Qur'an, explicitly states that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) made the alms given at the end of Ramadan a specific obligation. After the arrival of these two authentic reports, narrated by those two noble Companions from the famous 'Abdullahs, 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar and 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, each of whom reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he made the alms given at the end of Ramadan a specific obligation, how is it permissible for a Muslim to say: The alms given at the end of Ramadan is not a specific obligation, but only a general obligation?
Therefore, one should rely on these two authentic hadiths to understand the correct jurisprudence of the alms given at the end of Ramadan, which is that it is a specific obligation made obligatory by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). This means that he made it obligatory to explain it, but that was not from his own opinion, because the entire Shari'ah is from the revelation of the sky. However, there is a difference between this revelation coming in the Noble Qur'an and this revelation coming in the authentic Sunnah. The obligation of the alms given at the end of Ramadan came in the authentic Sunnah, as you have heard, and as we have mentioned repeatedly and emphasized, it is not permissible for a Muslim to distinguish between Allah and His Messenger, or to distinguish between the Book of Allah and the hadith of His Prophet, for all of this constitutes His Shari'ah. As he (peace be upon him) said: .
Thus, the alms given at the end of Ramadan is one of the specific obligations. A Muslim should hasten to pay it, not be lazy or neglect it, otherwise he will be sinful, because he would be neglecting one of the specific obligations of Islam.
It is mentioned in the first hadith, the hadith of Ibn 'Umar, that the alms made obligatory by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is a sa' of barley, or a sa' of dates, or a sa' of raisins. In this hadith or in another, dried milk is mentioned, and in others, certainly, wheat is mentioned. However, the basis is that the obligatory zakah from wheat is half a sa', not a sa' as in the other types.
Here comes an issue in which the scholars have long differed: Is it obligatory to pay the zakah from these specific items, these types mentioned in the hadith or the authentic hadiths, and is it not permissible to pay a substitute for them, or is it permissible to pay the value?
Al-Shafi'i and others hold the first view, meaning: It is obligatory to pay the zakah from these items mentioned in the hadiths. As for Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), he considers it permissible to pay the value, the value of these mentioned items. What I see, and what has become clear to me for a long time, is that the reason for this difference among these scholars goes back to looking at this obligation, the obligation of the alms given at the end of Ramadan: Is it a purely devotional act of worship where the purpose intended by the Lawgiver is not known? In that case, the text must be adhered to, and no independent legal reasoning is done in understanding this text? Or is this alms one of the acts of worship whose meaning is rational? I have touched upon this research more than once, and I do not want to repeat the discussion again, even though I feel that some people may not understand the intended meaning of this detail: that an act of worship is either purely devotional and not rational in meaning, or it is devotional and rational in meaning. But perhaps the research into what we are dealing with now will clarify the intended meaning of those two expressions.
Is the alms given at the end of Ramadan rational in meaning, or is it purely devotional?
Those who hold that it is purely devotional are those who stopped at the text and adhered to it literally, saying: It is obligatory to pay barley or wheat or... and so on. As for those who understood that the intended meaning of this obligation is the concept of its purpose, which is to provide for the poor, these people say: It is permissible for us to pay the value, because the value is more beneficial for the poor than paying these specific items, especially in this time.
As a result of my intellectual work on this issue, it became clear to me that the stronger position is that the alms given at the end of Ramadan is rational in meaning. Many acts of worship derive the rationality of their meaning from the indication of the text itself, or rather from understanding the text. But for this specific obligation, we found that the hadith explicitly stated the intended purpose of the legislation of this alms, and that is in the second hadith, the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, where he said: "As purification for the fasting person from idle talk and obscenity, and as food for the poor." Thus, this hadith explains to us that the purpose of the legislation of the alms given at the end of Ramadan is clear: something that relates to the one paying the zakah, and something else that relates to the poor. As for what relates to the one paying the zakah, it is his (peace be upon him) saying: "Purification for the fasting person from idle talk and obscenity." As for what relates to the poor, it is his saying: "Food for the poor."
If this is clear, as I hope it is, then we return to the specific items mentioned in the authentic hadith. If we were to adhere strictly to the literal wording of the hadith without considering what we are currently explaining, and we excluded, for example, barley and even wheat, and gave our poor people in this town [these items], the poor person would not benefit from this charity. I do not say he would not benefit at all, but I say that he certainly would not benefit from the purpose for which the Lawgiver made obligatory the sa' of barley and half a sa' of wheat or barley. This is because our poor person here, if he received these measures of one or the other, would return them to the original seller, the grain merchant, and sell them to him for a price slightly less than what the rich man paid him, whether a little or a lot. In this way, the poor person would return with a charity less than what Allah prescribed for him. I mean, if the rich man wanted to give his charity in wheat, he would give half a sa'. The price of this half sa' is one Syrian pound. The man pays one Syrian pound to the grain merchant and brings the wheat to the poor person. Then the poor person returns the wheat to the grain merchant, who takes the price of eighty or seventy-five [piastres], less or more; Allah is All-Knowing. The point is that he does not receive his full right. Why? Because we did not heed or notice the purpose for which the Lawgiver made the alms of breaking the fast obligatory, which is food for the poor. He made the barley the food when they were eating barley bread and praising Allah greatly for this bread, because their conditions, as we all know, were conditions of extreme poverty. And if they were given wheat, that would be better and better. But in those days, life in most of the lands where Islam originated or was present was based on these types of grains mentioned in the hadith. Consequently, most houses contained "tannours" (ovens) in which they baked bread from wheat or barley, and every house had the small mill known as the "jarousha." Today, there is no existence of such means that facilitate for the poor person to eat barley bread, grinding it with his hand and his wife baking it with her hand.
Today, bread has become something bought from the bakery. Therefore, in this case, we see that applying the meaning of the hadith to which the Shari'ah aimed is by giving the value. And completely the opposite in the villages that still live in a manner similar to the life of the time of the Prophethood and the Message, and where many villages still store a year's worth of food in wheat and barley, and use the "jarousha" and the "tannour" and the like. In such villages, the charity is to be given from the specific items mentioned in the text of the hadith, and that is what is obligatory at that time. Because, first, it is the text of the hadith, and second, it is what realizes the benefit of the poor person, unlike the poor person in the capitals. There, if you give him the value, he will do the opposite of what the poor person here does: he will go down to the market and buy wheat and barley to store it as food for his family. So if you come to him with this food, whether in wheat or barley, first you have given him his right, and second, you have saved him from having to buy what you presented to him, had you presented to him the value of these items instead.
Therefore, I understand from what Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) went to, in his statement regarding the permissibility of giving the value, that this should be observed when the value is more beneficial for the poor person. The value should not be taken as a general rule; the rule is what the hadith explicitly stated. But in some circumstances, in some countries like the capitals, if it is certain, as we believe, that the value is more beneficial for the poor person, as we explained previously, then it is permissible to give the value. As for the villages, the text of the hadith must be adhered to and applied there.
This is with regard to the types from which it is permissible or obligatory to give the charity, or to give its value when the value is more beneficial for the poor person.
On this occasion... the question; especially since the festival is one or two days away from us: What is the value of this charity?
I mean, we feel in our reality that no one goes to the grain merchant and says to him: "Please give me ten sa' of barley," because I have ten alms to give for myself, my wife, and eight children, for example. But all of us do is give the value. In this case, we should know the value.
The custom is that the Ministry of Awqaf issues a bulletin. This bulletin takes into account the right of the poor person more than what Allah prescribed. And I say: there is nothing wrong with that; but on the condition that the rich person knows what is obligatory for him first. Then, if he wishes, he may volunteer more, and there is nothing wrong with that. But to say: "This is what is obligatory for you, and the obligatory amount is slightly less or more than that"; I do not see this as correct. Therefore, I say, as is my custom in every... and due to the difference in prices of wheat and barley in this country, the value of the sa' of barley is 130 to 135 piastres. If you give 130 to 150, you have given the obligatory amount and a voluntary addition. The value of the half sa' of wheat is one Syrian pound. Some scholars see no distinction between barley and wheat, and it is obligatory to give a sa' of wheat just as it is obligatory to give the same amount of barley. But we have seen some hadiths that explicitly state—and they are generally authentic—that the obligatory amount of wheat is half a sa', unlike the other types, for which the obligatory amount is a sa'. Based on this, the alms of breaking the fast is from one pound upwards.
And this detail is important to me for a point I mentioned recently here or elsewhere, I no longer remember; which is that the capacity of those who give the alms of breaking the fast differs from person to person. Perhaps for one person, it makes no difference whether the alms of breaking the fast is one pound, five pounds, or ten, because Allah has made things easy for him. But perhaps for another person, he searches his pockets and tries to calculate whether the alms of breaking the fast will come out or not. For him, it makes a difference from one franc to two francs, not from one pound to two pounds. Therefore, we must clarify what is obligatory of this charity, and then each person is responsible for himself.
Before anything else: Is there a poor person who cannot give a sa' for himself, his wife, and his children?
It may exist. Okay, it may exist that someone is slightly richer than him, but he cannot give the value of the sa', one and a half pounds. So he gives one pound. And so on, the rich person can give a sa' of raisins, which may be worth ten pounds or eight pounds. I did not touch on these aspects.
Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Perfect.
Therefore, when we want to give the value, we want to give the minimum value; so that the poor person himself can also prepare to give zakat for his fasting. If we present this summary, and the minimum value is from one pound to one and a half pounds upwards, we have opened the way for more of the fasting people to give the alms of breaking the fast, unlike if we exaggerated the price and raised the price... the poor people. In that case, there would be poor people who are actually able to give the alms of breaking the fast, but when we exaggerated the price and raised it, we deprived them of this charity. Therefore, the middle path is the obligatory one in all legal rulings.
Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... is the original standard for the sa', and this is possible; no one of you needs a shaykh or a fatwa. Each one of you, if he has free time, goes to the grain merchant with two hands, half a sa', four [handfuls] is the sa', with moderate hands, then he puts something as a precaution... not moderate hands, more than that. The result will be that the sa' is close to two kilograms, they will add a little or subtract a little depending on what? The hands.
This is with regard to the types or the value of these types. There remains one thing, which is the time of giving.
Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Keep your questions after I... have them.
The time of giving the alms of breaking the fast:
The hadith in "Sahih al-Bukhari" is explicit, narrated by Ibn 'Umar, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the payment of zakat al-fitr before the festival prayer." The text is exactly this, and it is always preferable to implement this text as it is. The details we mentioned earlier, whether rational in meaning or devotional, are something a person can understand; indeed, the scholars themselves differ on this. Therefore, it is obligatory to apply every text literally, except for one who perceives that it aims at a specific goal; in that case, he follows that goal, even if he does not adhere to the literal wording of the text. This is because adhering to the literal wording sometimes leads its adherent to something that is both reprehensible and laughable at the same time.
There is no harm in reminding you of what is understood from the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), narrated by Abu Hurayrah, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade urinating in stagnant water." The forbidden thing is what the text of the hadith indicates, which is urinating in stagnant water. However, if a person urinates in an empty vessel and then pours that urine from the empty vessel into stagnant water, it is permissible. This is a reprehensible and laughable ruling! Because the result is the same, but his adherence to the literal text without looking at what the text aims at—preserving the purity of the water, or at least its cleanliness—without considering this, has led to this strange and odd ruling.
Similarly, for example, when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said in a hadith: , and in the course of that, regarding the virgin, he said: . The one who clings to the literal text without looking at what the text aims at said: If the virgin says, "I consent," it is not valid; she must remain silent. Because the hadith carries a ruling; yes, it carries a ruling, but did this ruling intend to make things easy for the girl or difficult? What comes to the mind and imagination of every jurist regarding the text is that he intended to make it easy. Because the virgin—and unfortunately I say this: in those days, not in these days—was too shy to be frank with her father, let alone her brother, uncle, or other relatives, and say, "Yes, I consent," or more than that. She would be bashful and remain silent. So the Wise Lawgiver, who knows what women are created with, especially virgins, regarding their modesty, was lenient and accepted their silence. Therefore, they say in many contexts: "Silence is consent." But that one who froze on the text was not satisfied with this and said: She must remain silent, and if she says, "I consent," it is not valid... the question... completely, so she must remain silent! All of this comes from being rigid on the text.
So I say: The time for the festival prayer, as mentioned in the authentic hadith, is that he ordered its payment before the festival prayer. He ordered its payment before the festival prayer. It is necessary to stand by this text as we said, especially since the text here is rational in its adherence to the literal wording. Here is a clear example: Many people rush to pay zakat al-fitr at the beginning of Ramadan, and some people at various times in the middle of Ramadan, some five or six days before, and recently some of my brothers asked me that I had paid... the charity. I said to him: Redo it. Is the person who pays zakat al-fitr at the beginning of Ramadan? This is the charity of fasting, not zakat al-fitr. Note this naming. The Wise Lawgiver named it zakat al-fitr, and the scholars are unanimous on this. Nevertheless, negligence reaches some people to the point that they are unaware of the meaning contained in this naming, zakat al-fitr, so they pay this charity at the beginning of Ramadan, in the middle of Ramadan.
Do you think that if this charity is placed in the hand of a truly poor person, will it remain with him until the festival? Even practically, the man did not pay zakat al-fitr; he paid the charity of Ramadan because it fell in Ramadan. But we might imagine that a poor person takes this charity at the beginning of Ramadan and saves it until the festival. This might happen, but it is very rare. A needy man, as soon as he receives this charity, will spend it on himself and his family. And at that time, in name and in action, this charity has become the charity of Ramadan for him, not zakat al-fitr. It is supposed to be zakat al-fitr, as is the discussion in the hadiths in the books of jurisprudence. Therefore, if the one who pays zakat is unable to do so, he should delay paying zakat al-fitr until before the festival prayer.
There is a leeway. If it came from someone other than the narrator of the hadith, who is the Companion Abdullah ibn 'Umar, I personally would not accept it, fearing that it would not be zakat al-fitr. This is Abdullah ibn 'Umar who narrated this hadith: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the payment of zakat al-fitr before the festival prayer." He said: "We used to pay it one or two days before the festival prayer."
The narrator of the hadith is the one who narrates this hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) on one hand, and then he speaks about the method of the Companions' payment of this charity on the other hand, saying: They used to pay it one or two days before the festival prayer.
So I took from this reality that Abdullah ibn 'Umar informed us about a leeway in this timing, and I was convinced of it for two reasons:
The first reason—and it is the principle—is that it came from the Companion who is the narrator of the hadith, and "the Companion who is the narrator of the hadith is more knowledgeable about his narration than others." This is a matter of disagreement among the jurists regarding whether the opinion of the narrator of the hadith conflicts with his narration. The majority of scholars, if the opinion of the narrator of the hadith conflicts with his narration, hold that his narration takes precedence over his opinion, contrary to the Hanafis. They reversed this issue and said: "The opinion of the narrator takes precedence over his narration." And I mentioned that I see that the opinion should not take precedence over the hadith in any way. But this is in a case of conflict, the opinion versus the narration. However, when there is no conflict but rather an expansion—as I said—of the meaning of the timing; then at that time we take from the Companion what he informed us about, which was that it occurred in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who ordered them to pay it before the festival prayer. This is the first thing that convinced me to adopt this addition or this dispensation.
And the other thing is that I find in practice and in action that some people may not be able to pay the charity with this literalness, "before the festival prayer." For example, he is setting off to the prayer place; he may not be able to do so. It may be easier for him, for example, to pay it in the evening. He might be in a farther place; so he pays it one day or a day and a night before, and so on.
So the hadith orders us to pay the charity before the festival prayer, so this is how we should do it, unless it is not feasible for us, then we take a leeway of one day, at most two days. It is easy and fine. The order before the prayer is an order from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)... one or two days is the practice of the Companions of the Messenger, in the time of the Messenger, and in his era.
These are the issues I saw fit to speak about on this occasion. I now have some other issues regarding the festival prayer. If there are questions about the charity, I will answer them; otherwise, I will continue my speech.