His words under the heading “Perishing of Wealth …”: “Al-Shāfiʿī and … and … maintained that if the niṣāb is destroyed before one is able to pay, the zakat obligation lapses, whereas if it is destroyed after that point, it does not. Ibn Qudāmah gave precedence to this view ….”

I say: This is also the position selected by a group of the Hanbalis, among them Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, as stated in al-Ikhtiyārāt al-ʿIlmiyyah, p. 58.

His words under the heading “Paying the Monetary Equivalent instead of the Actual Commodity”: “Al-Bukhārī narrated in a decisive suspended form that Muʿādh said to the people of Yemen: ‘Bring me ʿarḍ⦗1⦘—garments of khamīṣ or labīs—as your charity in place of barley and millet; that will be easier for you and better for the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ in Madinah.’”

I say: This wording suggests that the report from Muʿādh is sound, but that is not the case. Al-Bukhārī only suspended it thus: “Ṭāwūs said: Muʿādh said …,” which leaves a gap between Ṭāwūs and Muʿādh. Al-Ḥāfiẓ, in his commentary, states:

“This suspended chain is authentic up to Ṭāwūs, but Ṭāwūs did not hear from Muʿādh, so it is broken. One should therefore not be misled by the claim, ‘Because al-Bukhārī cited it with decisive suspension, it is therefore authentic in his view,’ for that establishes soundness only up to the person from whom the report is suspended; the remainder of the chain is not thereby authenticated. Even so, his citing it as evidence shows that, in his estimation, it possessed considerable strength.”

Even if the report were authentic, it would not support Abū Ḥanīfah’s view that there is no difference between paying in cash and paying in kind. Rather, it supports those who allow payment in cash when that serves the interests of the poor and eases matters for the wealthy. This is the choice of Ibn Taymiyyah, who said in al-Ikhtiyārāt:

“It is permissible to pay the monetary equivalent in zakat when that better meets the need and the benefit, such as …”

⦗1⦘ ʿArḍ: merchandise or goods.