Is it mandatory to give Zakaatul-Fitr in food, or is it permissible to give it in monetary currency?

In the Name of Allaah, the Benevolent, the Merciful All praise belongs to Allaah, and may peace and blessings be upon the messenger of Allaah, and upon his family, companions, and those allied with him. The default is giving Zakaatul-Fitr in the form of food due to the texts in that. Of them is the hadeeth of Ibn Umar, may Allaah be pleased with him: 'The messenger of Allaah, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded the giving of Zakaatul-Fitr from Ramadan (in the amount of) 1 Saa' of dates or 1 Saa' of barley.' [Agreed Upon] And of them is the hadeeth of Abu Sa'eed, may Allaah be pleased with him: 'We use to give Zakaatul Fitr (in the form/amount of) 1 Saa' of dates, or 1 Saa' of barley, or 1 Saa' of cheese, or 1 Saa' of raisins.' [Agreed Upon] And this is what is adopted by the vast majority of the people of knowledge. The Hanafi view differed in that they permitted giving Zakaatul-Fitr in the amount, and that is the opinion of Al-Hasan Al-Basry, Sufyan Ath-Thawri, and the Khalifa Ar-Rashid Umar ibn AbdelAziz. It is also the view of Al-AshHab & ibn Al-Qaasim of the Maliki madhhab. And Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah had taken the middle path and chose the view that if there is an obvious, outweighing benefit for the poor in giving the amount, then it is permissible to leave the default which is food and give the amount. He said, may Allaah have mercy on him,: 'As for giving the amount in Zakaah or Kaffaarah (Oath Expiation) and its likes, then what is known from the madhhab of Ash-Shafi'i and Malik is that it's impermissible, and with Abu Hanifah it is permissible, and Ahmad, may Allaah have mercy on him, permitted it in places and forbid it in places. Some of his (Ahmad's) companions are those that affirmed the text and others considered it two different opinions, and what is apparent is that giving the amount without a need or outweighing benefit was not permitted by him. This is why the prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, set the compensation with 2 sheep or 20 dirham (a currency), and did not resort to the equivalent amount. This is because if the equivalent amount was allowed without restriction, the giver may offer kinds (of wealth) that are low-grade, and because there may be harm in estimating the equivalence, and Zakah is based upon fairness, and this is to be considered in the amounts of wealth and its types. As for giving the amount for a need or outweighing benefit or maintaining fairness, there is no harm in that. The example of that is one selling the fruits of his garden or his crop for currency. In this circumstance, it is sufficient to pay 10 dirham and is not obliged to buy fruits or oats (to pay his Zakaah with the identical kind) since he has equated himself with the poor, and Ahmad had dictated the permissibility of that. Another example is a man obliged to give 1 sheep (in Zakaah) for 5 camels, and he cannot find someone to sell him sheep. Here, giving the amount is enough and he is not responsible to travel to another city to buy a sheep. Or an example is the recipients of Zakah requesting to receive the amount since it is more beneficial to them, so he gives it to them. Or (another example is) the collector (of Zakah) sees that taking it (the amount) is more beneficial to the poor, as it was narrated about Mu'adh ibn Jabal, may Allaah be pleased with him, that he use to say to the people of Yemen: 'Give me soles (i.e. shoes) or clothing, for that is easier for you, and better for the people of Madinah of the Muhajireen & Ansar.' It was said that he said this regarding Zakah, and it was said that it was regarding Jizyah.' [End of Ibn Taymiyyah's words] And Imam Al-Bukhari chaptered in his Saheeh what was called: 'Chapter on Merchandise for Zakah', and mentioned the report of Mu'adh and quoted: 'Taawoos said: Mu'adh, may Allaah be pleased with him, said to the people of Yemen: Bring an item of clothing, a shirt or other garment as Zakah instead of barley and corn; it will be easier for you, and better for the companions of the prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, in Madinah.' And Al-Bukhari using this as evidence is evidence to the strength of the narration in his view as Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said in Fath Al-Bary (4/54). And Al-Hafidh reported on behalf of Ibn Rasheed, he said: 'Al-Bukhari agreed with the Hanafi view in this matter, despite his much differing with them, but the evidence drove him to that. And this action of Mu'adh, along with the approval of the prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, proves its permissibility and legislation (i.e. being part of the Islamic code of law).' Now, if it has been established the permissibility to take the monetary amount of the Zakah obligated on particular types (of possessions), then reasonable is the statement of permissibility of that in the Zakah mandated upon individuals if a need arises or there is a benefit in that (for them). This is because the sharee'ah obligates Zakah on the grain itself, the date itself, the grazing cattle themselves, and the currencies themselves. This is as per what was mentioned in the hadeeth of Mu'adh, wherein the prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said to him upon sending him to Yemen: 'Take grain from grain, a sheep from the sheep, a camel from camels, a cow from cows.' And yet he permitted leaving that for a benefit, so the permissibility of that in Zakaatul-Fitr is reasonably founded. And this sharee'ah of extensive wisdom only commanded the people in the time of prophethood to give food so that they can all be able to fulfill this obligation upon them, and not be burdensome upon them or difficult. This is since currency rarely existed in those times in the lands of the Arabs, nevertheless the Bedouin areas, and even more particularly the poor. So if the command was for actual money to be given for the obligatory Zakah on every individual, this would have been impossible for the poor altogether, and it would have been difficult for the rich whose wealth was cattle, slaves, and food. As for food, it is easily available for all. No home is void of it except those who are direly impoverished. Therefore, it was of the greatest benefits, and the deepest of wisdom to leave the money that was difficult and rare, and give the food that was easy to find, and be given to all the people. So if the conditions change and the amount is more beneficial (than the food), and the benefit in that is more apparent and more complete, then it appears there is no harm. And Allaah, the Most High, knows best.