Fitra is upon the one who provided for him on the last night. According to the view of others, it is possible that his Fitra is not incumbent upon anyone who maintained him, because the reason for the obligation—maintenance throughout the entire month—was not fulfilled. It is also possible that a single Fitra becomes mandatory upon all of them collectively, apportioned according to their shares, because they participated in the cause of the obligation, similar to if they shared ownership of a slave.

476- Issue: He said: (If he has a surplus beyond his food for his day and night).

The sum of this is that Sadaqat al-Fitr is mandatory upon whoever is capable of it, and a minimum threshold (nisab) is not considered as a condition for its obligation. This was the view of Abu Hurayrah, Abu al-Aliyah, al-Sha'bi, Ata', Ibn Sirin, al-Zuhri, Malik, Ibn al-Mubarak, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. The followers of Ray (the school of opinion) said: It is not mandatory except upon one who possesses two hundred dirhams, or something of equal value in excess of his dwelling, based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): "There is no sadaqah except from what is beyond sufficiency (ghina)." The poor person has no sufficiency, so it is not mandatory upon him, and because he is eligible to receive sadaqah, it is not mandatory upon him, just as in the case of one who is not capable of it. Our evidence is what Tha'labah ibn Abi Su'ayr narrated from his father, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Pay the Sadaqat al-Fitr, a sa' of wheat," or he said, "barley, from every person, young or old, free or slave, rich or poor, male or female. As for your rich, Allah will purify them, and as for your poor, Allah will return to them more than what they gave." In a report by Abu Dawud: "A sa' of barley or wheat for every two."

Furthermore, because it is a right related to wealth that does not increase with the increase of wealth, the obligation of a nisab is not considered in it, similar to the kaffarah (expiation). It is not impossible for it to be taken from him and given to others, just as one upon whom the tithe (ushr) is mandatory, and the one they drew an analogy to is incapacitated, so the analogy upon him is invalid, and their hadith is interpreted as referring to the zakat of wealth.