The Quran explicitly mentions these forms of expiation and likewise sets them in this order; there is no dispute concerning that.

His statement, “sixty needy persons,” includes the poor.

When is the presence or absence of the means—or the ability or inability—taken into consideration? It is considered at the time the expiation becomes obligatory. Thus, according to this view, if he cannot find a slave and begins fasting, then finds one while fasting, he is not required to move on to freeing the slave. Likewise, if, at the time the expiation became obligatory, he was unable to fast and so fed sixty needy persons—or even if he had not yet fed them—then, should he later become able to fast, he is not required to move on to fasting. This is because ability or inability is determined at the time the obligation arises.

His statement, “he must feed sixty needy persons”: does feeding sixty needy persons mean transferring ownership to them, or simply feeding them? We say: the Quran describes it as feeding; it does not say, “Give them,” but rather, “Feed them.” We therefore know that it does not require transferring ownership. Accordingly, feeding sixty needy persons may be done in two ways:

First: he prepares a meal, whether lunch or dinner, invites the needy people to it, and they eat and depart.

Second: he gives each person food for him to prepare himself, provided that it is of the type customarily eaten: either one mudd of wheat or half a saʿ of other foodstuffs. In our time, food is not measured by volume but weighed; thus, this may be estimated as one kilogram of rice for each person. He should also provide something to accompany it, such as meat or the like, so that the feeding is complete. Is this number itself intended, or is what is intended the food of this number of people? What is intended is feeding this number of people, not merely the quantity of their food. That is, if a person gave charity