understood is that charity is normally offered to those who are distant, whereas one’s innate sense of duty already impels him to spend on those under his care. She therefore wished to ascertain whether giving to them from her property would truly be regarded as charity or merely as the ordinary maintenance that family bonds demand.

Those who read the story as concerning zakah contend that, when the word ṣadaqah is left unrestricted, it automatically refers to the obligatory alms. They further cite her question, “Will it count?” as evidence, for such wording is asked only about the obligatory charity that one must ensure discharges the legal duty. Supererogatory charity, on the other hand, requires no such inquiry; the donor may direct it to any avenue of righteousness he chooses.

The preponderant view, however, is the first—that the episode deals with voluntary charity. Awn al-Bari remarks, “The context decisively supports this interpretation.” The alternative narration, “Give in charity, even from your jewellery,” likewise indicates a voluntary act, and al-Nawawi declared this conclusively. Further confirmation comes from the Prophet’s ﷺ words, “Your husband and your children are most deserving of it,” for—by unanimous agreement—children may not be given from the obligatory zakah, making it certain that the charity in question was optional.