the obligation based on the nature of the wealth; thus, he takes the choicest from the choicest, and from others, he takes from the average, so it is not "evil," because the lower quality is not "evil." Likewise, if only the cause of its obligation were found, it would be mandatory to extract it. Their analogy is invalidated by the sheep of compensation (jubran), and our analogy is more appropriate than theirs, for the analogy of zakat to zakat is superior to the analogy of it to blood money (diyat). Once this is established, if one of the two obligations exists in his wealth and not the other, he is given the choice between extracting it or purchasing the other, and it does not become fixed upon him (21) to extract the existing one, because zakat does not become mandatory in the specific property (itself). The judge (al-Qadi) said: It is fixed upon him to extract what is present (23). Perhaps he meant if he is unable to purchase the other.

Section: If he wishes to extract the obligation from the two types, we examine the situation: if it does not require partitioning (tashqis), such as a man who has four hundred and extracts for it (24) four hiqqas and five bint labun, it is permissible. But if it requires partitioning, such as the zakat of two hundred, it is not permissible, because he cannot accomplish this except through partitioning. It has been said: It is possible that it is permissible, by analogy to the opinion of our companions: it is permitted to emancipate the halves of two slaves in the expiation (kaffara). This is not correct; for the Shari'a has not authorized partitioning in the zakat of pasturing livestock except out of necessity. For this reason, it established "waqas" (intervals) for it to avoid partitioning for the obligation within it, and it turned away in cases (25) below twenty-five camels from mandating camels to mandating sheep. Therefore, it is not permitted to say it is permissible when it is possible to turn away from it to mandating a complete obligation. If he finds one of the two obligations complete and the other incomplete, and he cannot extract it without compensation (jubran) along with it, such as if he finds in the two hundred five bint labun and three hiqqas, it is fixed to take the complete obligation, because the compensation is a substitute, for which the absence of the replaced item is a condition. And if each one requires compensation, such as if he finds four bint labun and three hiqqas, he has the choice of whichever of the two he wishes to extract with the compensation; if he wishes, he extracts the bint labun and a hiqqa and takes the compensation, and if he wishes, he extracts the hiqqas and a bint labun with its compensation. If he says: Take from me a hiqqa and three bint labun with the compensation, it is not permitted, because he is deviating from the obligation while it exists to the compensation. It is possible that it is permissible because compensation is unavoidable. If only a hiqqa and four bint labun are found, he pays them and takes the compensation, and he does not have the right to provide three bint labun with the compensation, according to the most correct of the two views. If both obligations are missing or defective, he has the right to deviate from them with compensation. If he wishes, he extracts four jadha'at and takes eight sheep or eighty dirhams, and if he wishes, he gives five bint makhad and with them ten sheep or one hundred dirhams. If he likes to [switch from hiqqas] (26) to bint makhad, or from bint labun to jidha', it is not permitted, because the hiqqas and bint labun are explicitly mentioned in this wealth, so he does not ascend to the hiqqas with compensation, nor descend to the bint labun with compensation.