and the wayfarer.” He Most High also says:

“Give near relatives their due, as well as the needy and the wayfarer.”

He Most High says:

“If relatives, orphans and the needy are present at the division, give them something from it.”

He Most High says:

“And those in whose wealth there is a known right for the beggar and the deprived.”

He Most High says:

“So eat of them and feed those who are content and those who come seeking help.”

Equal distribution was not obligatory in any of these or similar cases? Indeed, in most of these cases it is not even recommended, whether giving itself is obligatory or recommended. Rather, distribution should serve the interests at hand.

When we say concerning pilgrimage offerings and Eid sacrifices that it is recommended to eat a third and give a third in charity, this applies only when there is no reason to favour one allocation over another. Otherwise, if the poor were numerous, we would recommend giving more than a third in charity. The same principle applies if those to whom one gives gifts outnumber the poor, and likewise to the portion one eats.

Where receipt is based on need or benefit, consideration must be given to need and benefit according to the actual circumstances. Inheritance is different: its shares are apportioned according to relationships of kinship that apply equally to those who possess them. The term “son” includes the old and the young, the strong and the weak. A son receives neither because of his need nor because of his benefit, but solely because of his kinship. For this reason, those within the same category receive equal shares.

In these other cases, however, receipt is based on need and benefit. Equal distribution among the categories therefore cannot be either obligatory or recommended. Rather, giving must be proportionate to need and benefit, just as the underlying entitlement depends on them. The conjunction “and” entails