two types of wealth, or multiple properties, whose Zakah is treated as one, yet their conditions differ—for example, if he possesses a nisab (minimum threshold) and has acquired more of the same type during the year, but less than a nisab—it is not permissible to delay the Zakah in order to combine them all, because he is able to combine them by expediting it [the payment] at the time the first portion of it becomes obligatory.

Section: If he has set aside the Zakah but has not yet paid it to the poor person until it was lost, the obligation does not lapse from him. This is the opinion of al-Zuhri, al-Hakam, Hammad, al-Thawri, and Abu Ubayd. Al-Shafi'i also held this view, except that he said: If he was not negligent in disbursing the Zakah or in safeguarding what was set aside, he should refer back to his remaining wealth; if there is Zakah within what remains, he should pay it, otherwise he does not. The followers of the school of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: He pays Zakah on what remains, unless it falls below the nisab, in which case the Zakah lapses, whether he was negligent or not. [Malik said: I consider it sufficient for him if he disburses it to its rightful recipients, but if he disburses it after that, he is held liable.] Malik also said: He pays Zakah on what remains proportionally, even if only ten dirhams remain. Our position is that this is a defined right upon the owner of the wealth that was lost before it reached its rightful recipient, and thus he is not absolved of it, similar to a debt owed to a human being. Ahmad said: If he gave a man five dirhams of his Zakah, and before the man could take possession of them from him, he said, "Buy me a garment or food with them," and then the dirhams disappeared, or he bought what he asked for and it was lost, he must replace them, because the man had not taken possession of them from him. If he had taken possession of them and then returned them to him saying, "Buy for me with them," and then they were lost, or what was bought with them was lost, there is no liability upon him provided he was not negligent. He said this because the poor person does not take ownership of the Zakah except by taking possession of it. Thus, when he appointed him as an agent to purchase with it, the agency was invalid, because he appointed him to purchase with what he did not own, and it remained the property of the wealth owner, so when it was lost, it was his responsibility.