What is the ruling on paying zakat al-fitr in cash?

The questioner : At the end of the month of Ramadan, there is much debate regarding zakat al-fitr. Some people find it easy to pay it in cash, while some imams say it must be paid in the staple food of the people. What is the opinion?

The Shaykh : What do some of the imams say?

The questioner : From the staple food of the people of the country, such as wheat, rice, or dates.

The Shaykh : Yes, yes. There is no doubt that the former are mistaken. Those who say it is permissible to pay the charity of fitr in currency are mistaken because they contradict the explicit text of the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), which is narrated byThe Shaykh : in the two Sahihs from the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both), who said: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) specified this obligation that he (peace and blessings be upon him) imposed in obedience to the command of his Lord. It is not currency, but rather food from what the people of the country consume as their staple diet in that time. The meaning of this hadith is that the objective is not to relieve the poor and needy so that they can wear new and clean clothes, etc., but rather to provide them with food and drink on that day and the days following the festival. When I say "after the festival," I mean that the day of Fitr is the festival. As for the second and third days, they are not part of the festival in any way whatsoever. The festival of Fitr is one day, and the festival of Adha is four days. The objective of obligating the charity of fitr 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 long or short. So when a person comes and says, "No, we will pay the value; this is more beneficial for the poor," he is making two mistakes. The first is that he contradicted the text, and the matter is one of worship (ta'abbud); that 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 obligate the community to feed a sa' of these foods, did not know or understand the benefit of the poor and needy as well as those who claim that paying the value is better. 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 deviate from obligating the value, or obligating dirhams or dinars, to obligating food? Therefore, He has a purpose. And so He specified the obligatory item, 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 currency, is an accusation against the Lawgiver that He did not legislate well, because their legislation is better and more beneficial for the poor. If this were their intention, it would be disbelief. But they do not intend this; rather, they are negligent and speak words that are the very essence of error. Therefore, it is not permissible to pay anything other than what the Wise Lawgiver specified, which is food in all cases. Here is a note that must be mentioned: The Lawgiver obligated 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 not even wheat or grain, because grain requires something else, namely the existence of a grinding mill, and it requires that there be a small or large oven with the mill, as is still found in some villages. Since these foods have become abandoned and neglected, it is necessary in that case to pay the alternative from food, not currency, because when we pay the alternative from food, we follow the Shari'ah in what it legislated of types of food known in that time. But when we say we will pay the alternative, which is currency, it is returned to us that the Wise Lawgiver did not legislate well, because we all agree that currency is more widely used than any type of food. But when we see that the Wise Lawgiver obligated food and we find that this food is not suitable today, then we must put in its place an alternative food. For example, rice. What household is without eating rice? No one, neither poor nor rich. So we bring out rice instead of wheat, or we bring out sugar, for example, or burghul, or something similar that is food. In some hadiths, there is aqt (dried milk). Aqt is what you call here jamid (dried milk).

The questioner : Milk.

The Shaykh : Frozen milk. Yes, a person can pay from this food. But in reality, 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. What I see is that its use is also mentioned in some hadiths. Dates are also mentioned, but I think dates are not widely used in these countries as they are used in Saudi Arabia, for example. There, it is food and nutritious, and it may keep them full and save them from many other foods. The important thing is that the obligation, initially and originally, is to pay something from these types specified in the hadith itself. One does not move to another food as an alternative unless there are no poor and needy around who eat from this food, which is, for example, as we said, aqt (jamid) or dates. Similarly, raisins. Raisins are eaten among us, but what is it? It is not today's food that is stored and consumed as a staple. So the best, in our belief, and Allah knows best, is to pay rice and the like, such as what we said, burghul and frika. These are staples eaten by all classes of people. This is my answer to what you asked, my brother.