Note: Some jurists ask: Is free grazing a condition, or is its absence an impediment? It has been said that there is no difference between the two formulations, and that the disagreement is merely verbal.

Others have said that the disagreement is substantive. Its consequence is that, if we are uncertain whether the animals graze freely or not, and we hold that free grazing is a condition, zakah is not due, because the basic presumption is that the condition is absent. But if we hold that the absence of free grazing is an impediment, then zakah is due in this case, because the impediment has not been established; and the basic presumption is the absence of any impediment.

“Thus, for twenty-five camels, one bint makhad is due; and for fewer than that, one sheep for every five ...”

His statement, “Thus, for twenty-five camels, one bint makhad is due; and for fewer than that, one sheep for every five”: Here, the author explains the amount of zakah that is due. That is, for every twenty-five camels, one bint makhad is due—namely, a young female camel that is one year old. It is called a bint makhad because her mother will generally have become pregnant, and a makhad is a pregnant female. For fewer than twenty-five camels, one sheep is due for every five: for the first five, one sheep; for ten, two sheep; for fifteen, three sheep; for twenty, four sheep; and for twenty-five, one bint makhad.

If he were to give five sheep for twenty-five camels, that would not suffice. If he were to give a bint makhad for twenty camels, there is a difference of opinion.

Some scholars said: No camel, even an older one, suffices for fewer than twenty-five camels, based on Abu Bakr’s report, which he wrote and which states: “For fewer than that, sheep are due: one sheep for every five.” (1) That is, for fewer than twenty-five camels, one sheep for every five.