the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): “For grazing flocks numbering from forty to 120, one sheep is due”; and that the surplus not covered by zakat consists only of the animals exceeding three hundred until that excess reaches one hundred, as indicated by the Prophet’s statement (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): “For any greater number, one sheep is due for every hundred.” He explicitly stipulated one sheep for each hundred but said nothing about numbers falling short of a hundred. On this interpretation, his answers to these two cases would not be inconsistent. Rather, the consistent principle underlying his answers would be this: if one category falls short of the minimum number liable to zakat, or constitutes a surplus beyond the complete hundreds in a flock of three hundred or more, nothing is taken from it. If neither category falls short of that minimum or constitutes a surplus relative to the other, animals are taken from both: for a flock of two hundred or fewer, one sheep for every forty sheep and one goat for every forty goats; above two hundred, one sheep for every hundred sheep and one goat for every hundred goats. If the remainder from the two categories together entails only one animal, it is taken from the more numerous category.

If, however, one category in this case does not reach the number liable to zakat—for example, if there are 120 sheep and thirty goats—there is disagreement about this too. Ibn al-Qāsim said in al-Mudawwana that both animals are taken from the sheep. This accords with Sahnūn’s position that, where there are 120 sheep and forty goats, both animals are taken from the sheep. Sahnūn regarded Ibn al-Qāsim’s distinction between thirty goats and forty as an inconsistency, saying: “The case of the buffalo points to a better answer than this.” He meant that, according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s principle in the buffalo case, one goat should be taken from the thirty goats, even though they would not independently be liable to zakat, just as, in the buffalo case, a yearling calf is taken from the twenty cattle, even though they would not independently be liable to zakat.

His statement, however, is not correct. The reason for the disagreement in this case is that one sheep is taken on account of forty sheep and is also taken on account of the entire 120. This is what gives rise to the disagreement. The ruling in the buffalo case, by contrast, is sound and admits no such disagreement: the yearling buffalo calf was taken on account of only thirty buffalo, leaving ten that, by agreement, were not covered by zakat. The second yearling calf must therefore be taken from the other cattle, which are more numerous. It has also been reported from Sahnūn, concerning