Or he says: “By Allah, I could not find this sheep for less than two hundred riyals, and the butcher charged fifty riyals to slaughter it,” and the like. This is not permissible. Hence, the scholars said: It is disliked to state the value of the food in the presence of the guest, because, whatever the circumstances, it will hurt his feelings, and he cannot leave pleased with such treatment.

The phrase, “the Muslim,” excludes the disbeliever. It encompasses the resident non-Muslim under Muslim protection, the hostile non-Muslim, the non-Muslim granted safe-conduct, and the non-Muslim bound by treaty. This is the well-known position of the school of law, as they stipulated that the guest must be Muslim. But the correct view is that it includes both Muslims and non-Muslims, because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him honor his guest” (1). This is general in wording; he did not say, “his brother.” Thus, if a resident non-Muslim under Muslim protection stays with you as a guest, you are obliged to honor him with hospitality.

The phrase, “passing through,” means one who passes by you while traveling. As for a resident, he has no right to hospitality. If a resident had the right to hospitality, how many residents would there be knocking on people’s doors! Thus, he must be passing through—that is, traveling onward. Even if he is a traveler but remains for two days, three days, or longer, he has no right to it; rather, he must be passing through.

The phrase, “in villages,” excludes cities. Villages are small settlements, while cities are large ones. They said this is because villages are places where need is likely, whereas cities are large places containing restaurants, hotels, and other things through which one can manage without