obligatory. Thus, a guest and the like are even less likely to make Zakah al-Fitr obligatory upon the person supporting them on their behalf.

His statement, “If he can afford only some of them, he begins with himself, then his wife”: “some of them” means some of those whom he supports, based on the view that Zakah is obligatory upon him on their behalf. If he cannot afford the Fitr charity for all those he supports, he begins with himself, because he is personally addressed by this obligation, and because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Begin with yourself.” (1)

For example, a man has only one saʿ in excess of his own provisions, the provisions of his dependents, and his essential needs. Should he divide the saʿ between himself, his wife, and his children, or not? The answer is that the minimum Fitr charity is one saʿ, so this saʿ is paid on behalf of the man himself.

“Then his wife,” that is, his spouse. She takes precedence over his mother and father, because spending on her is a reciprocal obligation, like a sale—involving a price and an item sold—whether one is affluent or insolvent.

As for spending on one’s parents, it is voluntary support. Therefore, the wife has greater priority for the Fitr charity than the mother and father. According to the view we have held to be correct, however, this issue does not arise.

His statement, “Then his slaves, then his mother, then his father”: “then his slaves” means that if he has three saʿs, one is for himself, the second for his wife, and the third for his slaves, who take precedence over his parents, because maintenance of slaves is obligatory whether one is insolvent or affluent. Maintenance of one’s parents, on the other hand, is obligatory only when one is affluent. Thus, slaves take precedence over the parents.

According to the view we have regarded as stronger, slaves take precedence over everyone, because