Ibn al-Qāsim therefore maintained that the mudd measure applies in every city, just as al-Shāfiʿī said.

Abū Ḥanīfah held that each poor person should receive half a sāʿ of wheat, or one full sāʿ of barley or dates, and he added: “If the expiator gives them breakfast and dinner, that suffices.”

The root of their disagreement is how they interpret the Almighty’s words:
“from the average of that with which you feed your own families” (Q 5:89).
Is what is meant a single meal, or a day’s provision—that is, breakfast and supper? Whoever understood it as a single meal said, “A mudd represents the middle level of satiety.” Whoever understood it as breakfast and supper said, “Half a sāʿ is required.”

A second cause of divergence is that this expiation hovers between the expiation for deliberately breaking the fast in Ramadan and the expiation for causing harm. Whoever likened it to the former ruled that one mudd is sufficient; whoever likened it to the latter required half a sāʿ.

They also differed over whether the bread must be accompanied by a relish, and if so, what counts as a moderate relish. Some said plain bread is enough; Ibn Ḥabīb said it is not. Others said the middle-level relish is oil; still others said milk, clarified butter, or dates.

Mālik’s companions likewise disputed who exactly are the “family” to whom the verse attributes the average standard of food—“from the average of that with which you feed your own families” (Q 5:89). One view is that it refers to the household of the one making expiation; on this view, what must be given is the median staple on which he subsists—if his staple is pulses, then pulses; if wheat, then wheat. Another view is that it refers to the people of the town in which he lives; accordingly, the obligation is measured by the average fare of that town rather than by his personal fare, meaning the prevailing staple there. These two opinions underlie the assessment of the “average” amount to be given—whether it is the middle quantity with which he feeds his own family, or the middle quantity with which the townspeople feed theirs—apart from the special case of Medina.

The Second Question: What Fulfils the Clothing Option

Mālik held that one must clothe the recipient in something that would cover him sufficiently for prayer: one garment for a man, and two garments—a chemise and a head-cover—for a woman. Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah said that the minimum to which the name “garment” applies is acceptable: a lower wrap, a tunic, trousers, or a turban. Abū Yūsuf held that a turban or trousers do not suffice.

The reason for their disagreement is whether one should adhere to the bare linguistic sense of the term or to its legal sense.

The Third Question: Must the Three Days of Fasting Be Consecutive?

Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī did not make consecutiveness obligatory—though they recommended it—whereas Abū Ḥanīfah required it. Their dispute turns on two considerations. First, is it permissible to act on a Qur’anic reading that is not recorded in the muṣḥaf? In the recitation of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd the phrase appears: “then fasting three consecutive days.” Second, does an unqualified command to fast imply consecutiveness or not, given that the default rule for obligatory fasting in the Sharīʿah is that it be consecutive.