provide it free of charge, because feeding the hungry is a communal obligation, and one may not charge a fee for fulfilling an obligation.

Others said: He must provide it to him, but the beneficiary must pay its value, because he has consumed the very property of another and is therefore liable to compensate for it: its value, if it is an item whose value is assessed, or an equivalent replacement, if it is a fungible item.

There is a further distinction indicated by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him: if the person compelled by necessity has the means to compensate for it, he must do so; but if he is poor, then he owes nothing, for how can a poor person repay it? Feeding the hungry is obligatory, unlike the wealthy person, who has the means to compensate the owner of the property. This is a middle position and has a sound basis for consideration.

If the owner of the property or food refuses to give it to him, may the person compelled by necessity take it by force?

The answer is: yes, he may take it by force. If he cannot take it except by fighting, should he fight?

The answer is: The scholars said that he should fight. If the owner of the property is killed, he is the aggressor; and if the person compelled by necessity is killed, he is a martyr.

If it so happens that he is unable to do so and cannot obtain it, until he dies, is the owner of the food liable for his death?

The answer is: Some scholars said that he is liable, because he transgressed by failing to fulfill an obligation.

Others said that he is not liable, because the man did not die as a direct result of his action. The well-known position