The reason the jurists of the various regions disagreed about the waqṣ—the interval in which no zakāt is due—in cattle is that the ḥadīth of Muʿādh reports that he withheld judgment concerning those intermediate numbers and said, “I shall ask the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—about them.” When he returned, he found that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—had already passed away.

Because no explicit text exists on the subject, scholars sought its ruling by analogy. Those who drew an analogy with camels and sheep held that nothing is owed in the waqṣ; whereas those who argued that the default in every interval is that zakāt is due unless evidence rules it out concluded that there is in fact no waqṣ in cattle, since no proof—whether by consensus or otherwise—establishes an exemption.

Chapter Four: The Niṣāb for Sheep and the Amount Due

All scholars agree that for free-grazing sheep, when the flock reaches forty head, one sheep is due as zakāt up to one hundred and twenty. If it exceeds one hundred and twenty, two sheep are due up to two hundred. If it exceeds two hundred, three sheep are due up to three hundred. Once it exceeds three hundred, one sheep is due for every additional one hundred.

This is the position of the majority, with the lone exception of al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ. He held that when the flock numbers three hundred and one, four sheep are due, and when it reaches four hundred and one, five sheep are due. This view is reported from Manṣūr on the authority of Ibrāhīm, yet the sound, Prophetic reports found in the “Book of Alms” support what the majority have stated.

The scholars also concur that goats are combined with sheep, but they differed over which kind the collector should take.
• Mālik held that the collector takes an animal from the more numerous kind; if the two kinds are equal, the choice is his.
• Abū Ḥanīfah maintained that whenever the kinds differ, the choice belongs to the collector.
• Al-Shāfiʿī said that he should take an animal of average quality from the mixed kinds, citing ʿUmar—may Allah be pleased with him—who said: “You count against them the suckling lamb that the shepherd carries, but we do not take it; nor do we take the one kept for fattening, the pregnant ewe, the one being milked, or the breeding ram. We take instead a jadhʿah or a thaniyyah. That is fairness between the best property and the average.”

Likewise, the jurists agree that no he-goat, decrepit animal, or one with an obvious defect is to be taken in ṣadaqah, as established in the “Book of Alms,” unless the collector sees that taking it is better for the poor.

They differed, however, about blind or sick animals: should such animals be counted against the owner’s total? Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī said that they are counted, while a report from Abū Ḥanīfah holds that they are not.

The root of their disagreement is whether an unrestricted term covers both sound and sick animals. They likewise differed in this connection over the offspring of dams: are the young counted along with their mothers so that the niṣāb is completed by them when the mothers alone do not reach the threshold?