of reward." And because his maintenance is not mandatory, the payment of Zakat to him is not prohibited, just like a stranger. This differs from the wife, as her maintenance is mandatory upon him. Furthermore, the fundamental principle is the permissibility of payment, due to the husband being included in the general categories of those named for Zakat, and there is neither a textual prohibition nor consensus regarding it. Analogy of him to one upon whom prohibition is established is incorrect, because the difference between the two is clear. Thus, the permissibility of payment remains established. Argumentation based on this is stronger than argumentation based on the texts due to the weakness of their indication; for the first hadith concerns voluntary charity, as she said: "I wanted to give some jewelry of mine as charity," and charity with jewelry is not mandatory. The statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Your husband and your children are the most deserving of those to whom you give your charity," does not negate [the law], as children are not to be given Zakat. As for the second hadith, it contains no mention of the husband, and the mention of Zakat within it is not preserved (ghayr mahfuz). Ahmad said: "Whoever mentions Zakat, it is, in my view, not preserved; it is only charity other than Zakat." This is also what al-A'mash said. As for the other hadith, it is mursal (a narration with a missing companion in the chain) and it concerns a vow.

Section: If there is someone in his family for whom he is not required to provide maintenance, such as an orphaned stranger, the apparent opinion of Ahmad is that it is not permissible for him to pay his Zakat to him, because he benefits from the payment to him by being enriched to the extent of his living expenses. The correct view, Allah willing, is the permissibility of paying it to him; because he is included among the categories of those entitled to Zakat, and there has come no text, consensus, nor valid analogy for his prohibition. Therefore, it is not permissible to exclude him from the generality of the text without evidence. Even if it is imagined that he benefits from the payment to him, we say: he may not benefit from it, as he may spend it on interests that the payer does not cover. Even if we assume there is benefit, it is a benefit that does not cause the loss of a mandatory obligation upon him, nor is property brought to him by it, so this does not prevent the payment, just as if he were to reach him through a donation without being part of his family.

Section: It is not for the one who distributes Zakat to purchase it from the person to whom it has passed. This is reported from al-Hasan, and it is the position of Qatadah and Malik. The companions of Malik said: If he does purchase it, the sale is not invalidated. Al-Shafi'i and others said: It is permissible, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Charity is not permissible for a wealthy person,"