The majority of scholars gave preference to the first ḥadīth, considering it the more firmly authenticated, whereas the Kufans favored the report of ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm, since to them it was corroborated by statements transmitted from ʿAlī and Ibn Masʿūd. They argued that a ruling of this kind can only be established by explicit revelation, for it is not the sort of matter arrived at through analogical reasoning.

The reason Mālik, his companions, and al-Shāfiʿī differed over what is owed on any number above one hundred and twenty up to one hundred and thirty is that the reckoning by forties and fifties does not yield a consistent result in that range. Hence, those who regard the span between one hundred and twenty and the point where the calculation becomes regular as a “gap” say: “There is no clearly stated obligation beyond the wording of the authenticated ḥadīth until the herd reaches one hundred and thirty, and that is precisely what the ḥadīth indicates.”

Al-Shāfiʿī and Ibn al-Qāsim, however, held that three bint labūns are due in this interval, because Ibn Shihāb relates in the Prophet’s Book of Ṣadaqah:

“When the camels reach one hundred and twenty-one, three bint labūns are due; and when they reach one hundred and thirty, two bint labūns and a ḥiqqah are due.”

The divergence between Ibn al-Mājishūn and Ibn al-Qāsim thus arises from a tension between the plain sense of the established text and the explanatory detail found in this report. Ibn al-Mājishūn preferred the apparent text, since its authenticity is unanimously accepted, whereas Ibn al-Qāsim and al-Shāfiʿī interpreted the concise statement in light of the more detailed, explanatory one. Mālik’s practice of giving the collector a choice seems to reconcile the two traditions—and God knows best.

The second issue concerns the owner who does not have the exact age-class of camel that is due but possesses one above or below it. Mālik held that he must purchase the required age-class. Others maintained that he may give the age-class he possesses together with an additional twenty dirhams—or two sheep—if his animal is younger, and that if it is older the collector must return to him twenty dirhams or two sheep. This ruling is explicitly recorded in the Prophet’s Book of Ṣadaqah, so there is really no basis for dispute; it may simply be that the report did not reach Mālik. Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Thawr followed this ḥadīth.

Abū Ḥanīfah held that the owner must pay the monetary value, consistent with his general principle of discharging zakāt through equivalent prices. Others said that he should give the age-class he possesses, plus—or minus—the difference in value between it and the age-class that is actually due.