his statement. This follows the view of those whose reasoning is that surplus animals are covered by the zakat paid. Those who hold that surplus animals are not covered would say, in this case, that both animals are taken from the sheep, though not on the grounds that the goats constitute a surplus. Rather, the first sheep was taken on account of only forty sheep; nothing was taken on account of the remaining eighty-one, which outnumber the goats. On this reasoning, the second animal is therefore also taken from the sheep.

The same disagreement applies if there are 201 or three hundred sheep and forty goats, so bear this in mind. This is a guiding principle: apply it by analogy to cases resembling these two situations.

Section

As for the second case, where the two or more animals become due only on the two categories together, neither category constituting a surplus in relation to the other, and each reaching the minimum number liable to zakat, an example is 120 sheep and forty goats. Ibn al-Qāsim’s statements concerning this in al-Mudawwana are inconsistent. In this case, he said that one sheep and one goat are due. Yet, concerning someone who owns 360 sheep and forty goats, he said that all four animals are taken from the sheep, contrary to his answer in the first case.

His differing statements reflect the disagreement over whether surplus animals are covered by the zakat paid. In his answer to the first case, he treated them as covered, reasoning that the sheep was taken on account of all 120 sheep, so the second animal had to be taken from the goats. In the second case, he treated them as not covered, reasoning that the three sheep were taken on account of only three hundred sheep, leaving sixty, which outnumber the goats; the fourth animal was therefore taken from the sheep.

To be consistent with this answer, he would have had to say in the first case that the sheep was taken on account of only forty sheep, leaving eighty on account of which nothing had been taken. Since these outnumber the goats, the second animal would also be taken from the sheep. This is Sahnūn’s position in this case: both animals are taken from the sheep on this reasoning. This is a guiding principle: apply it by analogy to whatever cases of this kind you encounter.

It is also possible that he held that the animals exceeding forty, up to 120, are not a surplus left uncovered by zakat, but are covered by the one sheep paid, as evidenced by the statement of