Section: One should pay zakat from the same type as his wealth. If it consists of various types of equal value, it is permissible to pay the zakat from any one of them, just as it is paid from either of the two types of sheep. If they are of different values, one must take from each type what is due from it. If one pays from the middle quality what suffices for the required amount and its value, it is permissible. If one pays the obligatory amount from the finest of them to the extent of the obligation, it is permissible, and he earns the reward for the extra quality. If one pays it based on value, such as paying one-third of a fine dinar for [an obligation of] half a dinar, it is not permissible because the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - specified half a dinar, so it is not permissible to fall short of that. If one pays from the lower quality and adds to the amount paid until it equals the value of the obligation, such as paying one and a half dinars for a one-dinar obligation that equals its value, it is permissible. The same applies if one pays clipped [coins] instead of perfect ones, adding the difference between them, for it is permissible because he has fulfilled the obligation in both value and quantity. If one pays a lower value for a higher value, it is likewise. If one pays debased coins (bahraj) for fine ones and adds enough to equal the value of the fine ones, Abu al-Khattab said: It is permissible. The Qadi said: He is required to pay fine ones and he cannot take back what he paid of the defective coins; because he paid defective coins towards the right of Allah Almighty, so it is similar to paying a sick animal instead of healthy ones. This is also the view of al-Shafi‘i, although his companions said he may reclaim the defective coins in one of the two scholarly opinions. Abu Hanifah said: It is permissible to pay poor-quality coins instead of fine ones, and clipped ones instead of perfect ones, without compensation, because if the quality meets its own genus in matters of usury, its quality has no value. Our argument is that quality is a recognized value, as evidenced by the fact that if one destroys a fine item, it does not suffice him to pay a poor-quality one in its place. Furthermore, because if he does not compensate for it with what completes the value of the obligation upon him, he falls under the generality of the saying of the Almighty: {And do not aim for the bad from it, spending [that which you would not take except with closed eyes]} [Quran 2:267]. And because he paid poor-quality for fine in the same quantity, so it is not permitted, as in the case of livestock.