- If the entire nisab consists of males, it is valid for him to give a male animal from them. Thus, if he possesses twenty-five camels, all of them male, an ibn makhad is due from him, because a person is not obligated to give something that is not among his property; and because zakat was prescribed as a means of mutual support: males are due on account of males, and females on account of females.
This is closer to the underlying rationale and to analogical reasoning, since a person is only obligated to give something comparable to what he possesses.
Some scholars said: If the nisab consists of males, then what the Lawgiver specifically designated is nevertheless obligatory. Thus, if he possesses twenty-five camels, all of them male, a bint makhad is due from him; if he cannot find one, then a male ibn labun. If he possesses thirty-six male camels, then a bint labun is due for them, and an ibn labun does not suffice.
This view is closer to the outward purport of the sunnah, because the sunnah specified the matter. The Prophet ﷺ said: “... a female bint makhad; if she is not available, then a male ibn labun ... a bint labun ... a hiqqah ... a jadha'ah ...” (1) The Lawgiver explicitly stipulated maleness and femaleness, so the Sacred Law must be followed.
This view is more cautious. We should not depart from what the Sacred Law has prescribed merely on the basis of analogy, though the view adopted by the author is more consistent with analogical reasoning.
When we say that the view adopted by the author is more consistent with analogical reasoning, this does not mean that textual evidence and analogy conflict, because the sunnah is not explicit in its indication here.