the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—who said: “No zakāt is due on less than five wasqs, nor on less than five awāq (two hundred dirhams of silver), nor on less than five head of camels.”

If one of the two intermingled owners possesses a complete nisāb while the other owns less than a nisāb, and the collector mistakenly takes the zakāt from the flock of the one who is below the nisāb, the owner who does possess the nisāb must reimburse him, for in Mālik’s view intermixing has no effect when the amount is below the nisāb.

When each partner owns at least a nisāb, but one owns more than the other, they are treated as a single proprietor for assessment and then apportion the liability between themselves in proportion to their holdings. For example, if one owns forty sheep and the other eighty, a single ewe is due: the owner of forty provides one-third of it, while the owner of eighty provides the remaining two-thirds. Likewise, if one owns forty and the other fifty, one ewe is still due; the former contributes four-ninths of its value and the latter five-ninths—and the same proportional method applies in every case.

Should one of the partners also own sheep in which the other has no share, he must nevertheless combine them with the mixed flock, treating them as though they were intermingled with his partner’s animals.

If neither partner possesses a nisāb and the collector nonetheless seizes a sheep from one of them, the entire loss falls on its owner, for this is outright injustice with no interpretive basis and no jurist has ever sanctioned it.

Conversely, if the full nisāb is reached only by pooling several owners’ flocks—for instance, forty sheep divided among four or more men—and the collector, following the view of some scholars who deem such a case liable, takes one ewe, they must settle the matter among themselves by reimbursement.

As for partners who own intermingled camels,