In his al Muhalla, Ibn Hazm strongly supports the view that besides zakah, there are other financial dues. He provides several arguments and quotes from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Companions, and Followers, and concludes, "God ordains the rich of each city to take complete care of the poor in that city. If zakah proceeds are not sufficient and there is no available fai' to be used, the government must force the wealthy to spend on the poor. There must be assignments for food, clothes for winter and summer, and shelter that protects them from rain, heat, sunshine, and the eyes of passers-by." His argument goes as follows:
A. From the Qur'an God says, "And render to the kindred their due right, and also to those in want and to the wayfarer,"48 and "And do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer, and what your right hands possess."50 Thus God imposes a due to the indigent and the wayfarer along with the right of the kindred, and prescribes good doing to parents, kinsfolk, needy, neighbors, and slaves. Good doing requires taking care of their physical needs. Refusing to take such care is undoubtedly wrong and sinful. In another verse God explains the reason for dwelling in Hell: "What led you into Hellfire? They will say, 'We were not of those who prayed, nor were we of those who fed the indigent'."51 God, here, associates feeding the needy with obligatory prayers.
B. From the sayings The Messenger of God is reported, through several chains all excellent in correctness, to have said, "He who has no mercy toward people shall not receive mercy from God."52 Whoever has excess wealth and sees his Muslim brother hungry, naked, or lost, and does not extend help, is undoubtedly merciless. 'Abd al Rahman bin Abu Bakr says "The Companions or al Suffah were poor people, and the Messenger of God said, He who has food for two must take with him a third, and he who has food for four must take with him a fifth, or a sixth.'"53 Ibn 'Umar narrates that the Messenger of God (p) said, "A Muslim is a brother of the fellow Muslim. He does not do him injustice or let him down."54 Leaving a Muslim to hunger or cold while one has the ability to feed and clothe him is certainly letting him down! Abu Sa'id narrates from the Messenger of God (p), "He who has an extra ride must give it to him who has no ride, and he who has excess food must give to him who has no food." Abu Sa'id continues, "and the Prophet mentioned the kinds of wealth that he liked to mention, so many kinds that we saw that none of us has a right to any excess."55 I believe there is unanimity among the Companions as stated by Abu Sa'id, about all that comes in this saying. Abu Musa narrates from the Prophet (p), "Feed the hungry and pay to release the captive."56
C. From Companions and Followers 'Umar says "If I still have ahead of me as much time as what is gone, I would take the excess wealth of the rich and distribute it among the poor migrants."57 'Ali says, "God prescribes on the wealth of the rich as much as is sufficient to satisfy the poor among them. If the latter suffer from hunger, nakedness, or exhaustion, it is because of privation by the rich. It is just that God ask them [the rich] the account on the Day of Resurrection and punish them for it." Ibn 'Umar says, "On wealth, there is a right besides zakah." 'A'ishah, al Hasan bin 'Ali, and Ibn 'Umar are known to have answered people who asked them for money "If you ask to pay for ransom of a heavy blood, or an overwhelming liability or depriving poverty, you have a right that is due." Abu 'Ubaidah and three hundred Companions on a journey were near the end of their provision of food, Abu 'Ubaidah ordered each individual's food be collected in two containers, and distributed equal rations to everyone. This represents an agreed-upon position of all these Companions, since none are known to have disagreed, We also have correct reports to the effect that al Sha'bi, Mujahid, Taus, and others all said, "There is a right on wealth besides zakah." We know of no one who opposes this except al Dahhak's comment that "Zakah annuls every other right on wealth." The narration of al Dahhak is not even approved of, let alone his own opinion!58 The fact is, all those who accept al Dakkah's view are the first ones to differ with it in actual life, since they all believe there are rights on wealth other than zakah, which include providing for needy parents, for one's wife, and for slaves, feeding domestic animals, and paying debts and other liabilities. Furthermore, such people say he who is in such need of water that he is at the verge of death for want of it, is obligated to take water wherever it is found, and even to fight anyone who prevents him that right. What is the difference between fighting to avoid death from thirst and fighting to prevent death from hunger and nakedness?
Indeed, the opponents' view is in opposition to ijma', Qur'an, Sunnah, and analogy.
It is not permissible for any Muslim in need of food to eat the flesh of dead animals or the meat of the hog, while there exists lawful food that is in excess above the needs of its owner, whether the owner is Muslim or of the people of the Pledge. It is obligatory for the owner of excess food to feed the hungry; he who is in need does not have to eat from hog meat or the meat of a dead animal. In such cases, the poor person is permitted to fight until his right is secured. If he is killed, whoever killed him is sinful and must pay the ransom and be subjected to the due penalty (death), but if his repulsor is killed, he goes to the wrath of God because he is an aggressor, and God says, "But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye all against the one party that transgresses until it complies with the command of God."59 For reasons similar to these, Abu Bakr fought those who refused to pay zakah.60