Explanation of the author's statement: "He pays it on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Muslim for whom he is responsible, even if it is the month of Ramadan."

The Shaykh : He said "He pays it on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Muslim for whom he is responsible". He pays it on behalf of himself as an obligation, based on the statement of Ibn 'Umar "He pays it on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Muslim for whom he is responsible". This means a Muslim for whom he provides maintenance, such as a wife, mother, father, son, daughter, and the like of those for whom he provides maintenance. It is obligatory for him to pay it on their behalf, based on the hadith , which means "from those for whom you provide maintenance." However, this hadith is weak in its chain of narration; it is also disconnected and marasil (missing the link of a Companion), so it is not valid to cite it as evidence. For this reason, the correct view is that zakat al-fitr is obligatory on every person for himself. It is obligatory on the wife for herself, on the father for himself, on the son for himself, on the daughter for herself, and so on. This is because the hadith of Ibn 'Umar indicates that it is an obligation on every Muslim, whether male or female, free or slave, young or old. The principle is that an obligation is incumbent on each individual specifically. Here, if we said that it is obligatory on a person for those he supports, it would follow that one soul would bear the burden of another. The correct view among the scholars is that zakat is not obligatory on a person for those he supports, whether a wife or relatives. However, if he pays it on their behalf and they are pleased with that and witness it, there is no harm, no blame. It is like if a person pays a debt owed by another while the other is silent and pleased with it; there is no harm. But we do not compel a man by saying, "You must pay the zakat on behalf of your wife, your daughter, and your son." No.
This depends on the following: If these people do not have zakat, meaning zakat al-fitr, does the one who supports them commit a sin or not? If we say it is obligatory on him, he commits a sin. If we adopt the second view, he does not commit a sin, and they do not commit a sin because they do not have it.
And his statement "even if it is the month of Ramadan"—how so, even if it is the month of Ramadan? It means that even if he supports this man for only the month of Ramadan, his zakat, zakat al-fitr, becomes obligatory on him. So if a guest stays with you from the first day of Ramadan to the last day, zakat al-fitr becomes obligatory for him, and you pay it, because you are supporting him in this month. This view is based on what preceded, namely that zakat al-fitr is obligatory on the person who supports another person. A guest and the like are even more deserving of it not being obligatory. So this last issue is based on the first issue, and the correct view is that it is not obligatory. Yes? This is an extension of the discussion, yes?