The second is that it is never sufficient, as al-Shāfiʿī held.

The third is that it is sufficient only when needed, as when someone owes a sheep as zakat on camels but does not possess one, or when someone sells his grapes or fresh dates before they dry.

This is the position explicitly stated by Ahmad. He prohibited paying the equivalent value but permitted it in certain cases of need. Some of his followers, however, transmitted from him that it was permissible. They therefore attributed two positions to him regarding payment of the equivalent value, though they preferred prohibition because that is the position best known from him, corresponding to al-Shāfiʿī’s view. This is the most equitable of the three views, as we mentioned in a similar discussion concerning prayer. The textual and analogical evidence requiring payment in kind is like all other evidence establishing an obligation. It is well known, however, that the benefit served by requiring payment in kind may sometimes be outweighed by [the] greater benefit found in paying the equivalent value and by the hardship involved in payment in kind, which the Sacred Law does not impose.

[Section on Fasting]

[Forming the Intention to Fast during the Night]

Section

As for the third foundation, it is fasting.

Scholars differed concerning whether the intention to fast must be formed during the night, holding three views:

One group—including Abū Hanīfa—held that every fast, whether obligatory or voluntary, is valid with an intention formed before midday. This is indicated by the hadith concerning ʿĀshūrāʾ and by the hadith in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) entered upon ʿĀʾisha, found no food, and said, “Then I am fasting.”

By contrast, another group—including Mālik—held that fasting is not valid