How to respond to those who say that zakat al-fitr should be paid in money?

The Shaykh : ... Those who say it is permissible to pay the alms of fitr in money are mistaken; because they are contradicting the explicit text of the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), which the Shaykh narrates in "the two Sahihs" from the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both), who said:The Shaykh : In the two Sahihs, from the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both), he said: , so the Messenger (peace be upon him) specified this obligation that the Messenger (peace be upon him) made obligatory, in obedience to the command of his Lord to him; it is not currency, but rather food from what the people of the land were eating at that time.
The meaning of this hadith is that the intended purpose is not to provide entertainment for the poor and needy so they can wear new and clean clothes, and so on, but rather to provide them with food and drink on that day, and in the days following the festival. And when I say "after the festival," I mean that the day of Fitr is the festival, whereas the second and third days are not part of the festival in any way whatsoever. So the festival of Fitr is one day, and the festival of Adha is four days. The purpose of making the alms of fitr obligatory from this customary food in those days is to provide for the poor and needy on the first day of the festival of Fitr, and then the days that follow, whether they are long or short. So when a person comes and says, "We do not pay the value; this is more beneficial for the poor," he is making two mistakes:
The first mistake is that he contradicted the text, and the matter is one of worship; this is the least that can be said.
But the second aspect is very serious; because it means that the Wise Lawgiver, who is the Lord of the worlds, when He revealed to His noble Prophet to make it obligatory for the community to feed a sa' of these foods, He is the one who knows the benefit of the poor and needy, just as those who claim that paying the value is better know it. If paying the value were better, it would have been the original ruling, and feeding would have been the alternative; because the one who possesses money knows how to dispose of it according to his need. If he needs food, he buys food; if he needs drink, he buys drink; if he needs clothes, he buys clothes. So why did the Lawgiver turn away from making the value obligatory, or making dirhams or dinars obligatory, to making food obligatory? So He has a goal, and therefore He specified what is obligatory, which is food from these types mentioned in this hadith and others. So the deviation of some people from applying the text to the alternative, which is money; this is an accusation against the Lawgiver that He did not legislate well; because their legislation is better and more beneficial for the poor!! If he intended this, he would have disbelieved in it, but they do not intend this thing, but they are negligent and speak words that are the very essence of error. So it is not permissible except to pay what the Wise Lawgiver specified, which is food in any case.
And here is a note that must be mentioned:
The Lawgiver made obligatory types of these foods; because they were the known ones in the era of Prophethood and Messengership. But today, foods have emerged that have taken the place of those foods. Today, there is no one who eats barley, and indeed, there is no one who eats wheat and grain; because grain requires something else; which is that there must be a grinding mill, and it requires, if the "grinder" is found, a small or large "tannur" (oven) as is still found in some villages. So when these foods have become in the category of abandoned and neglected; then it is obligatory at that time to pay the alternative from food, not money; because when we pay the alternative from food, we have followed the Shari'ah in what it legislated of types of food known in that time. But when we say: we pay the alternative, which is money; it comes back to us that the Wise Lawgiver did not legislate well; because we all agree that money is more widely used than a type of food. But when we saw the Wise Lawgiver made food obligatory, and we found this food is not suitable today; then at that time we must put in its place an alternative food. For example, our alternative is rice. Is there any household that does not eat rice? No one, neither poor nor rich. So what is the alternative to wheat? Rice, or for example sugar, or burghul, or something similar to it which is food. In some hadiths, aqit is mentioned, and aqit is what you call here "jamid" (dried milk).

Another questioner: Milk.

The Shaykh: Frozen milk, yes, a person can look for an alternative from this food, but truly, as for us in Syria in the capitals, jamid is not known, but in many villages it is known. So if a person pays jamid to some of the poor and needy, the situation is perfectly fine, but this requires some knowledge of whether this person uses jamid or not. And what I see is that its use is predominant. Also, dates are specified in some hadiths, but I believe that dates are not widely used in these lands, as they are used in Saudi Arabia, for example. There, it is food and nutritious, and perhaps it can suffice them and make them independent of many foods.
The important thing is that it is obligatory, initially and originally, to pay something from these types specified in the hadith itself, and one does not pay another food as an alternative to it except if there are no poor and needy around who eat from this food, which is—for example, as we said—aqit, jamid, or dates. Also, raisins—for example—raisins are eaten among us, but what is it? It is not a food today that is stored and eaten as a staple. So the best—in our belief, and Allah knows best—is to pay rice and the like of what we mentioned, burghul, and what is this? Fariqah, fariqah; so these are staples that all classes of people eat.
This is my answer to what you asked, my brother.