a make-up fast outstanding after having delayed it, then he is only required to feed one poor person for each day, because making up the fast has become impossible in his case.

For example, if a man delays making up his fasts until after the second Ramadan and then dies, he is required to provide food, while making up the fasts is impossible in this case, since he died before he was able to do so after the second Ramadan. According to the school’s position, no one may fast on his behalf, because this is a fast made obligatory by the original injunction of the Sacred Law, and therefore does not admit of deputization.

It was also said that he must provide two feedings: one in compensation for the make-up fasts and another for the delay. Undoubtedly, this is more consistent by analogy if we hold that feeding is obligatory when one delays making up the fasts until after the second Ramadan without an excuse. Strangely, however, the school’s position in this matter is that only one feeding is required.

According to the school’s position, there is only one prescribed manner of feeding: one mudd (a dry measure) of wheat, or half a sa' of something else. What is meant by “something else,” according to the school, is dates, barley, raisins, and dried curds, because they hold that expiation and Zakat al-Fitr are only valid when given from five categories: wheat, dates, barley, raisins, and dried curds. Thus, when they say, “one mudd of wheat or half a sa' of something else,” they mean these four other categories. They also include things other than these four when they are unavailable; rice falls under their statement when the five categories are unavailable.

The correct view in this matter is that rice is like wheat: just as one mudd of wheat suffices, so too does one mudd of rice. For the Companions who reduced the amount from a full sa' to half a sa' in the case of wheat did so only because wheat is more wholesome and more beneficial than barley, and we have no doubt that rice is more beneficial than barley,