But if he does so, it is valid, unless the wealth is in a town where there are no poor people; in that case, he should distribute it in the nearest town to it. …
His statement, “But if he does so, it is valid,” means that if he transfers it to a distance at which prayer may be shortened or more, it is valid, though he incurs sin.
If someone were to ask: The principle according to us is that what is prohibited is invalid.
We reply: The prohibition here does not pertain to the act of giving itself; rather, it pertains to transferring it. Otherwise, it has been given to those entitled to it, and is therefore valid, while he is sinful for transferring it.
The prohibition that entails invalidity is that which pertains to the very essence of the act itself, such as the Prophet’s saying, “There is no prayer after the afternoon prayer” (1). Thus, if one prays, his prayer is invalid, except in those cases that have been excluded. There is a difference between a prohibition relating to the act of worship itself and one relating to something external to it.
His statement, “unless the wealth is in a town where there are no poor people; in that case, he should distribute it in the nearest town to it,” is an exception to his statement, “It is not permissible to transfer it to a place at which prayer may be shortened.”
The pronoun in his statement, “unless it is,” refers to “the wealth,” as indicated by his statement, “It is preferable to pay the zakat of each type of wealth”—meaning, unless the wealth is in a town where there are no poor people.
His statement, “where there are no poor people,” is based on what is most commonly the case. A more general wording would be: “unless it is in a town where there is no one entitled to zakat,” so as to include all the categories, for there may be no poor people there while there are others entitled to zakat for reasons other than poverty.