"Feed three sa's of dates among sixty poor people" (34). Also, because it is wealth that has become obligatory for the poor by law, it is mandatory to transfer ownership of it to them, just like Zakat. If we say: 'It is sufficient,' then it is a condition that he provides them lunch with sixty mudd or more so that he has fed them the required amount. If we say: 'It is not sufficient for him to provide them lunch,' but he presents sixty mudd to them and says, 'This is for all of you equally,' and they accept it, it suffices; because he has granted them ownership of the disposal and benefit of it before the division. This is the manifest position of the Madhhab of al-Shafi'i. Abu Abd Allah ibn Hamid said: 'It is sufficient for him even if he does not say "equally," because his statement "Take this for my expiation" implies equality, as that is the rule for it.' The Qadi said: 'If he knows that the amount of his right has reached every person, it is sufficient; if he does not know, it is not sufficient, because the original principle is the preoccupation of his liability, as long as he does not know the right has reached its rightful recipient.' The argument for the first position is that he delivered the right to its recipient as an undivided share, and they accepted it, so he is discharged from it, just like the debts of his creditors.

Section: Continuous succession (tataabu') is not required in feeding. Ahmad stated this in a narration by al-Athram, when it was said to him: 'What if he has an expiation for an oath upon him, so he feeds one person today, another after days, and another after that (35) until he completes ten?' He did not see any harm in that; this is because Allah, the Exalted, did not stipulate continuity in it. If he had sexual intercourse during the period of feeding, he is not required to repeat what has already passed. Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i said the same. Malik said: 'He must restart,' because he had intercourse during the expiation for zihar, so restarting became mandatory, like fasting. Our argument is that he had intercourse during a period where continuity is not stipulated, so it does not necessitate restarting, similar to intercourse with other than the woman he performed zihar against, or like intercourse in the expiation for an oath; and this is how it differs from fasting.

1321 - Issue: He said: "If he gives one poor person two mudds from two expiations in one day, it is sufficient in one of the two narrations."

This is the Madhhab of al-Shafi'i, because he has delivered the required amount to the required number of people, so it is sufficient, just as if he had delivered the two mudds to him over two days. The other narration is that it does not suffice him, and this is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, because he has fulfilled the daily sustenance from one expiation, so delivering it to him a second time on the same day does not suffice him, just as if he had delivered both (1) to him from a single expiation. Based on this narration, it is sufficient for one of the two expiations. Does he have the right to take it back for the other? It is considered: if he informed him that it was for an expiation, he may take it back, otherwise not. It is also derived that he may not take anything back, based on what we mentioned regarding Zakat. The first narration is more analogically sound and more correct, for considering the number of poor people is more appropriate than considering the number of days, and if he had delivered it to him over two days, it would be sufficient; also, if the deliverer were two different people, it would suffice for both of them, so the same applies if the deliverer is one person. If he gave sixty mudds to thirty poor people from a single expiation, it suffices him for that portion of thirty, and he feeds another thirty. If he delivered the sixty from two expiations, it is sufficient for him according to one of the two narrations, and it does not suffice in the other [except for] (3) thirty. The second matter is that what is sufficient in feeding is what is sufficient in the Fitrah (Zakat al-Fitr), which is wheat, barley, dates, and raisins, whether it is their staple food or not, and what is other than these. The Qadi said: 'It is not sufficient to dispense [other items], whether it is the staple food of his land or not, because the report came regarding the dispensing of these specific types, as mentioned in the hadiths we have narrated, and because it is the type dispensed in the Fitrah, so nothing else suffices, just as if it were not the staple food of his land.' Abu al-Khattab said: 'In my view, it is sufficient for him to dispense from all grains that are the staple food of his land, such as corn, millet, and rice, because Allah the Exalted said: "...from the average of that which you feed your families" (4). This is something he feeds his family, so it is mandatory that it should suffice by the manifest meaning of the text.' This is the Madhhab of al-Shafi'i. If he dispenses something other than his land's staple food that is of higher quality, he has increased in goodness, but if it is lower in quality, it does not suffice, and this is the better view.