Indeed, the alms are for the poor. This limits the category of alms to the specified types and that they are exclusive to them. [Mahamud said: "This limits the category of alms to the specified types and that they are exclusive to them, etc." Ahmad said: "This is the view of Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, and the opinion of making it obligatory to distribute it to all types, so that it is not permissible to leave out one type of them, is taken from the implication of the 'lam' indicating ownership, as Al-Shafi'i held, does not support the context, for the verse begins with a word of restriction indicating that others do not deserve a share in it. This is the purpose for which it was revealed, so there is no implication for anything else. And Allah knows best.] It does not extend to others, as if it were said: It is only for them and not for others. This is similar to your saying: The caliphate is only for Quraysh. You mean it does not extend beyond them and is not for others. It is possible that it is distributed to all types or to some of them, and this is the view of Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him. And from Hudhayfah, Ibn Abbas, and others among the companions and followers, may Allah be pleased with them, they said: Whichever type you place it in suffices you. And from Sa'id ibn Jubair, may Allah be pleased with him: If you look at a household of Muslims who are poor and dignified, and you support them with it, that is more beloved to me. And according to Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, it is necessary to distribute it to the eight types. And from Ikrimah, may Allah be pleased with him, that it is distributed among the eight types. And from Al-Zuhri, he wrote to Umar ibn Abdul Aziz about distributing the alms among the eight types. And the workers on them are the collectors who receive them. And the hearts that are to be reconciled are the noble ones among the Arabs, whom the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, would seek to win over so that they would embrace Islam, and he would give them something from it when the Muslims were few. And the necks refer to the freed slaves who are in need of it. And it was said:

The captives. It is said: to purchase the necks so that they are freed. And the debtors who have debts that have burdened them and do not possess after that what reaches the nisab. And it is said that those who have taken on burdens and have incurred debts in them. And in the way of Allah, the poor among the warriors and the pilgrims who are cut off. And the wayfarer, the traveler who is cut off from his wealth, is poor wherever he is, rich where his wealth is. A duty from Allah in the meaning of the confirmed source, because His saying "Indeed, the alms are for the poor" means Allah has made the alms obligatory for them. And it has been recited as a duty in the nominative case as: that is a duty. If you say: why was there a shift from the preposition 'to' to 'in' in the last four? [He returned to his speech. He said: If you say, why was there a shift from 'to' to 'in' in the last four... etc. Ahmad said: And there is another reason that is clearer and closer, which is that the first four categories are those who possess what might be given to them, and they take it as ownership. Thus, the use of 'to' is appropriate for them. As for the last four, they do not possess what is spent towards them, nor is it spent to them. But in interests that relate to them, the wealth that is spent on freeing necks is only taken by the masters of the freed slaves and the sellers, so their share is not spent into their hands until it is expressed by 'to' which implies ownership of what is spent towards them. Rather, they are merely a place for this spending and the interests related to it. Likewise, the workers only have their share spent for their creditors to free their debts, not for themselves. As for the way of Allah, this is clear in it. And as for the wayfarer, it is as if he was included in the way of Allah, but he was mentioned separately to indicate his specificity, although he is devoid of both prepositions. And it is possible to connect him to the genitive with 'to', but it is closer to the nearest one, and Allah knows best. My grandfather, Abu al-Abbas Ahmad ibn Faris, the jurist and minister, derived from the difference between the two prepositions a point in inferring that the purpose is to clarify the spending, and the 'to' is for ownership. He says: the related genitive that occurs as a statement about the alms is omitted, and its estimation must be determined. Either the estimation is: indeed, the alms are spent for the poor, like the saying of Malik, or owned by the poor, like the saying of al-Shafi'i. But the first is determined, as it is an estimation that suffices in both prepositions and is valid for the connection of 'to' with it. And it is valid to say: this thing is spent in such and such, unlike the estimation of being owned, for it only aligns with 'to', and when reaching 'in', it requires the estimation of being spent to align with it. Thus, its estimation from 'to' is general in relation, encompassing validity, determined, and Allah is the guide. If you say: to indicate that they are more deserving of receiving alms than those previously mentioned, because 'in' is for the container, it indicates that they are more deserving to have the alms placed in them and to be a target for them. This is due to the freeing of necks from slavery or captivity, and the freeing of debtors from the burden of debts, and the gathering of the poor warrior or the one cut off in pilgrimage between poverty and worship. Likewise, the wayfarer combines between poverty and estrangement from family and wealth. The repetition of 'in' in the saying 'and in the way of Allah and the wayfarer' has a virtue of prioritizing these two over the necks and the debtors. If you say: how did this verse occur amidst the repeated mention of the hypocrites and their schemes? I say: the indication that these categories are specific recipients of alms alone and not others shows that they are not among them, cutting off their ambitions and indicating their deserving of deprivation, and that they are enemies of it and its recipients. What do they have to do with it? And what authority do they have to speak about it and to criticize its distributor, blessings and peace be upon him?