It is preferable for the zakat due on each type of wealth to be distributed among the poor of the town where it is held, and it is not permissible to transfer it to a place to which one may shorten the prayer ………

His statement, “It is preferable for the zakat due on each type of wealth to be distributed among the poor of the town where it is held,” is so for several reasons:

First: it is easier for the legally accountable person, since transferring it from one town to another involves hardship and expense.

Second: it is safer, since travel exposes it to the risk of being lost or destroyed.

Third: the people of one’s town are the closest people to one, and relatives and those nearby have a right; those closest are most deserving of kindness.

Fourth: the poor of one’s town have their hopes attached to the wealth one possesses, unlike those farther away, who may not even know anything about one.

Fifth: when one gives to the people of one’s town, it plants the seed of affection and love between oneself and them. This has a great effect in fostering cooperation among the people of the town.

His statement, “among the poor of the town where it is held,” is not intended as an exclusive designation; rather, it also includes the other categories entitled to zakat.

His statement, “It is preferable,” indicates that distributing it among poor people outside one’s town is permissible, though less preferable.

Here, one must understand that if the poor outside one’s town are in greater need, or if they are relatives, then they are more deserving. But one must also understand that this applies when the place is near enough that travelling to it is not considered a journey. If it is far away, then the author says:

“And it is not permissible to transfer it to a place to which one may shorten the prayer,” meaning: it is not permissible to