whereas in al-Durrar al-Bahiyyah he stated unequivocally that it is obligatory, a stance adopted by his commentator Ṣiddīq Khān in al-Rawḍah al-Nadiyyah (1/200). Al-Shawkānī then reinforced that view in al-Sayl al-Jarrār (2/46–48), saying: “The reports of this chapter mutually strengthen one another.”

Yet he failed to notice the disparity between the two lines of transmission and the difference in their legal import: the sound path, as you have seen, is restricted by the condition of the ḥimā (protected pasture), whereas the other path is unrestricted but weak, incapable of serving as proof—something he himself acknowledged in Nayl. Nevertheless, he proceeded to rely on that weak, unrestricted path in the two later works just mentioned, forgetting the rule of “construing the unrestricted in light of the restricted,” a principle he often repeats when reconciling apparently conflicting evidences.

In light of all this, we may conclude that the beehives now maintained in some farms and orchards are not liable for zakāt, except for whatever voluntary charity one may freely offer, in the same manner previously discussed regarding trade goods. Allah knows best.