Abū Ḥanīfah; and Sufyān al-Thawrī voiced the same view, though in combining the two metals he opts for whatever course better safeguards the rights of the poor—that is, whether one bases the calculation on their current market value or on the fixed exchange rate.

Some scholars said: the smaller amount is added to the larger, whereas the larger is not added to the smaller.

Others maintained that dinars are always combined with dirhams according to their value, whether the dinars are fewer or more, while dirhams are never combined with dinars, because dirhams are the principal currency and dinars are secondary; after all, no ḥadīth or consensus exists for dinars until they reach forty.

A further group held that if a full nisāb is present in either metal, every amount of the other—great or small—is added to it; yet they did not allow combination for the purpose of completing a nisāb when neither metal reaches it independently, even though their aggregate would.

The source of all this confusion is their attempt to create a single nisāb out of two substances whose nisābs differ in weight. In truth, this has no meaning. Whoever seeks to merge one with the other has introduced a ruling into the Sharīʿah where no ruling exists, for he is affirming a nisāb that is neither that of gold nor of silver. According to the ordinary pattern of religious obligation and the demand for clarity, it is inconceivable that a specific ruling should exist in matters so prone to uncertainty and yet that the Lawgiver remain silent about it—such silence then giving rise to the very degree of disagreement we now witness—whereas the Lawgiver, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was sent precisely to eliminate discord.

Issue Four
Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah hold that no zakāh is due from partners until each of them possesses a full nisāb, whereas al-Shāfiʿī regards jointly held property as though it belonged to a single owner.

The basis of their disagreement is the consensus formed around the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “No zakāh is due on less than five awāq of silver.” From the wording one might understand that the ruling applies regardless of whether the property belongs to one owner or to several. Yet, because the rationale behind stipulating a nisāb is leniency, it follows that one of its conditions is that the nisāb belong to a single owner—and this appears the stronger view, and Allah knows best.

Al-Shāfiʿī seems to have likened partnership to intermingling (khulṭah), but the effect of such intermingling on zakāh is itself disputed, as will be discussed later.

Issue Five—concerning their disagreement over the consideration of a nisāb in minerals and the amount due on them: Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī both require a nisāb in minerals, but they differ in that Mālik does not stipulate the passing of a lunar year, whereas al-Shāfiʿī does, as we shall note later under the fourth category.