or join the property of one owner to that of another when such joining would increase the amount of alms due.
They therefore argued: Because this possibility exists in the ḥadīth, it must not be used to override the firmly established, unanimously accepted principle—that both the niṣāb and the zakāt-obligation are assessed on the holdings of a single individual.
Those who affirmed the effect of commingling replied: The term khulṭah (commingling) more clearly denotes actual mixing than formal partnership. Consequently, the Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—words concerning two comminglers,
“The two of them shall make restitution to each other in equal measure,”
show that the obligatory payment is treated as though it were owed by one owner. They also imply that the two comminglers are not true partners, for partners cannot make restitution between themselves when the amount taken is from joint property.
Whoever confined the meaning to liability alone, without extending it to the niṣāb, said: “Two comminglers pay as a single owner only when each of them possesses a niṣāb of his own.” By contrast, whoever made the rule of niṣāb follow the rule of liability said: “Their collective niṣāb is that of a single owner, just as their zakāt is that of a single owner.” Each side applied the Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—saying,
“No separated property may be combined, nor combined property separated,”
to support its respective view.
Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—explained that “nor combined property separated” refers to two comminglers, each owning one hundred and one sheep. Together they would owe three sheep in zakāt; yet if they separated their flocks, only one sheep would fall due on each of them. The phrase “no separated property may be combined,” on the other hand, refers to three people, each with forty sheep; if they pooled their flocks, only a single sheep would be required. According to Mālik, then, the prohibition is directed at comminglers who each possess a full niṣāb.
Al-Shāfiʿī interpreted “nor combined property separated” to address two men who together own forty sheep: were they to divide them, neither would owe zakāt, for in his doctrine the niṣāb of comminglers is legally the same as the niṣāb of a single owner.
Among those who accepted commingling, there was further disagreement over what kind of commingling affects zakāt. Al-Shāfiʿī required that the animals mingle; be brought to rest in one place; be milked, pastured, and watered together; and that their breeding males mix. In his view, there is effectively no distinction between commingling and partnership, which is why he requires a complete niṣāb for each partner, as mentioned earlier.
For Mālik, two owners are deemed comminglers when they share the bucket, the watering trough, the nightfold, the shepherd, and the breeding male. His companions disputed whether some or all of these conditions must be met.
The underlying cause of their disagreement is the breadth of the term khulṭah itself. Because of this ambiguity, some scholars—among them Abū Muḥammad Ibn Ḥazm of al-Andalus—held that commingling has no bearing on zakāt whatsoever.