the aforementioned buffalo case—forty buffalo and twenty cattle—that he takes both yearling calves from the buffalo. This is far-fetched and has no justification except on the supposition that he divided the buffalo and cattle into two groups, each consisting of twenty buffalo and ten cattle, and took the yearling calf from the more numerous category. By this reasoning, however, where there are sixty-two sheep and sixty goats, both animals would have to be taken from the sheep. How far-fetched such reasoning is! Apply the approaches I have explained concerning sheep and goats to buffalo and other cattle, and to Bactrian and Arabian camels, for they provide a method and guide for these cases. Success comes from Allah.

Section

When a flock exceeds three hundred, the surplus not covered by zakat, according to Ibn al-Qāsim, consists of the animals above three hundred until the flock reaches four hundred. Once it reaches four hundred, the surplus consists of the animals above that number until it reaches five hundred. Once it reaches five hundred, the surplus consists of the animals above that number until it reaches six hundred. The same calculation applies to greater numbers, in accordance with the Prophet’s statement (may Allah bless him and grant him peace):

“For any greater number, one sheep is due for every hundred.”

Consider his ruling concerning three hundred sheep together with another fifty sheep and fifty goats: three sheep are taken, while the fourth animal may be taken from either the sheep or the goats. He thus based his answer on the principle that the surplus is not covered by zakat, treating the sheep above three hundred as that surplus. The sheep and goats therefore became equal in number, and he gave the zakat collector the choice. Had he instead treated the surplus in the flock as everything above two hundred and one animals, in accordance with the original rule, he would have taken all four from the sheep. Had he based his answer on the principle that the surplus animals are covered by zakat, he would have said that the fourth animal must be taken from the goats, without giving the collector a choice.

Analogical reasoning in all these cases would have required determining how many animals are due from the two categories combined, and what share of that assessment falls to each category in proportion to its numbers, whether large or small. An animal whose allocation is divided into fractional shares would then be taken from the category bearing the larger share. If the two shares were equal, it could be taken from either category.

For example, if there are 120 sheep and forty goats, two animals are due. Of this assessment, one and a half animals fall to the sheep and half an animal to the goats. One animal is therefore taken from the sheep, while the other may be taken from either category. If the goats were more numerous, so that their allotted share amounted