it is not incumbent upon that poor person in the expiation. Some of them said: It follows from the opinion of our companions that it is not permissible even if they both agree, because it is a sale of wheat for its own kind with a discrepancy. Our argument is the statement of Ibn Abbas regarding the verse: "...from that which you feed your families..." [Surat al-Ma'idah: 89]. He said: It is bread and olive oil. From Ibn Umar: It is bread and ghee, bread and oil, and bread and dates; and among the best of what you feed them is bread and meat. He interpreted the feeding of family as bread along with other condiments (udm). Furthermore, the Sharia has commanded spending in absolute terms without restriction or quantification; therefore, it must be referred to custom (urf), as is the case in taking possession (qabd) and protection (ihraz). Those of custom only recognize, among themselves, bread and condiments as the expenditure for their families, not grains. The Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) and his companions only used to spend in this way, not what they [the opponents] mentioned, so that is the obligation. Furthermore, it is maintenance that the Sharia has quantified by sufficiency; therefore, the obligation is bread, like the maintenance of slaves. Also, with grain, one needs to grind and bake it; if she needs to undergo the hardship of that from her own wealth, then sufficiency is not achieved by his maintenance. It differs from feeding in expiation, for that is not quantified by sufficiency, and condiments are not required therein. Based on this, if she requested money, grain, flour, or other things in place of bread, he is not obligated to provide it. If he offered her something other than what is her due, she is not obligated to accept it, because this is an exchange, and neither of them can be forced to accept it, just like a sale. If they both agree to that, it is permissible, because it is food that has become an obligation on the debt/liability for a specific human being, so substitution for it is permissible, like food in a loan. It differs from food in expiation, because that is the right of God Almighty and is not for a specific human being, so one may accept a substitute for it. If he gives her grain or flour in place of bread, it is permissible if they both agree to it; because this is not, in reality, an exchange, as the Lawgiver did not designate the obligation as anything more than sufficiency. Thus, by whatever means sufficiency is attained, that is the obligation.