They hold that the two words designate a single meaning—a view advanced by Ibn al-Qāsim. Such an argument is purely linguistic unless it can be shown to possess a distinct legal import. A survey of Arabic usage, however, suggests that the two terms indeed denote one concept, differing only in degree—greater or lesser—in each case, not that one of them is invariably fixed at a level different from that of the other.

They also differed over the Almighty’s words:
“and for the freeing of slaves” (Q. 2:177).

Mālik said: They are slaves whom the ruler emancipates, their bond of allegiance (walāʾ) thereafter belonging to the Muslims.
Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah said: They are slaves under a contract of manumission (mukātabūn).

As for the “wayfarer” (ibn al-sabīl), according to them he is the traveler engaged in obedience whose provisions have run out so that he can find nothing to spend; some additionally stipulate that the wayfarer must be resident in the locality where the zakah is collected.

Regarding the phrase “in the path of Allah,” Mālik said: it refers to the arenas of jihad and ribāṭ, and Abū Ḥanīfah agreed. Others said: it refers to those performing the pilgrimage or ʿumrah. Al-Shāfiʿī said: it is the combatant residing where the charity is taken; he imposed this condition because, according to most jurists, it is not permissible to transport zakah from one town to another except out of necessity.

Section Three
The Amount Due to Each Recipient

With respect to the sum that may be given:
• The debtor is given whatever discharges his obligation, provided the debt was incurred in obedience and not in extravagance, indeed for a necessary matter.
• Likewise, the wayfarer is given what will carry him back to his homeland; the same would apply—according to those who count the combatant as the wayfarer—to what will take him to the field of battle.

They disagreed about the share that may be given to a single miskīn from the charity. Mālik set no fixed limit, leaving the matter to ijtihād, and al-Shāfiʿī concurred, saying: ‘It is the same whether what is given equals a full nisāb or is less than a nisāb.’ Abū Ḥanīfah disliked that any indigent person be given an amount equal to a nisāb from the zakah.

Al-Thawrī said: No one should be given more than fifty dirhams.
Al-Layth said: He may be given enough to purchase a servant if he has dependents and the zakah funds are plentiful.

Most jurists appear to agree that the recipient should not be granted a sum that makes him wealthy to the level of one for whom charity is no longer lawful, for whatever he receives beyond the amount that keeps him eligible for zakah raises him to the first rank of affluence, and that is forbidden to him.

Their disagreement thus springs from their divergent views on what that threshold is; the issue essentially turns on identifying the entry point of wealth.

As for the zakah collector, there is no disagreement among the jurists that he takes only in proportion to the work he performs.

This is what we have deemed suitable to record in this book. Should we recall anything further that serves our purpose, we shall append it—if Allah, exalted be He, so wills.