as is the case with a jointly-owned one. Then, does a sa' become mandatory for each of them, or is it by shares? This depends on what we mentioned regarding the jointly-owned slave. If one of them is insolvent, then nothing is upon him, and the amount mandatory is upon the other. If there is a muhaaya'a (rotation of service) between the master and the slave, or if the partners in the slave have entered into a muhaaya'a regarding him, the fitra does not enter into the muhaaya'a; for the muhaaya'a is an exchange of earnings for earnings, whereas the fitra is a right of Allah Almighty, so it does not enter into that, like prayer.

Section: If the qafa (experts in physical resemblance) attribute a child to two or more men, the ruling regarding his fitra is the same as the ruling for a jointly-owned slave. If a free person has [two or more relatives] upon whom his maintenance is [incumbent] between them, his fitra is upon them, like the jointly-owned slave, according to what was mentioned concerning him.

479 - Issue: He said: (And he gives the sadaqat al-fitr to those to whom it is permissible to give the sadaqat of wealth.)

It is only like this because the sadaqat al-fitr is a zakat, so its recipients are the recipients of all other zakats. Furthermore, because it is a charity, it falls under the generality of the saying of the Almighty: {Alms are only for the poor and the needy} [Quran 9:60], and it is not permissible to distribute it to those to whom it is not permissible to give the zakat of wealth, and it is not permissible to distribute it to a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim). This is the view of Malik, al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifa said: It is permissible. It is reported from Amr ibn Maymun and Amr ibn Shurahbil Abu Maysara al-Hamadani that they used to give it to monks. As for our evidence, it is that it is a zakat, so it is not permissible to distribute it to non-Muslims.