the collector (musaddiq)—who is the tax agent—shall not take any of these three, unless he sees fit to do so, such as if the entire threshold (nisab) consists of his type, in which case he may take from the same type of wealth. Thus, he may take an old, feeble animal, provided it is one of the older beasts; a one-eyed animal from among its peers; or a billy goat from among the billy goats. Malik and al-Shafi'i stated: If the collector deems that taking these three is better for him and more beneficial for the poor, he is permitted to take them, due to the apparent implication of the exception. There is no disagreement within the school that he is not permitted to take a male animal in any instance of Zakat if the threshold contains females, with the exception of the followers (atbi'ah) of cattle and the ibn labun (two-year-old camel) as a substitute for a bint makhad (one-year-old female camel) when it is missing. Abu Hanifah said: It is permissible to extract a male from a flock of female sheep, based on his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "In forty sheep, there is a sheep." (7) The term "sheep" applies to both the male and the female. Furthermore, when a sheep is ordered to be given unconditionally, a male satisfies that obligation, just like in the case of the sacrificial animal (udhiyah) and the sacrificial offering (hady). Our argument is that this is an animal upon which Zakat is due in its own essence, so femininity (8) is considered in the obligation, just as with camels. The absolute statement is qualified by analogy to other thresholds, and the sacrificial animal is not considered in the same category as wealth, unlike our issue here. If it is asked: What then is the benefit of specifying the billy goat (9) in the prohibition? We reply: It is because it is not taken even if the threshold consists of males. If one possessed forty males, and among them was a billy goat intended for breeding, it would not be permitted to take it—either because of its excellence, for none is reserved for breeding except the best and largest of the sheep, or because of its inferiority and the poor quality (10) of its meat. It is permissible that it is prohibited for both reasons. If the threshold consists entirely of males, it is permissible to extract a male in sheep in one view; in cattle, according to the more correct of two views; and in camels, there are two views. The difference between the three thresholds is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explicitly stated the female in the obligatory taxes for camels and cattle, but used the word "sheep" in an absolute sense. Regarding camels, he said: "Whoever does not find a bint makhad, let him give an ibn labun as a male." (11) In terms of meaning, the obligation for camels changes with the increase in age; thus, if we permitted the extraction of a male, it would lead to equality between two distinct obligations, because one would extract an ibn labun for twenty-five and extract the same for thirty-six, and this meaning is specific to camels. If it is asked: But in cattle, one takes a tabi' (one-year-old calf) for thirty, and a tabi' for forty if they are all followers (atbi'ah), and we have said that a small one is taken for small ones. We respond: This same implication would apply to extracting a female, so there is no difference. Those who permitted the extraction of the male in all cases said: He takes an ibn labun for twenty-five, its value being less than the value of the ibn labun he takes for thirty-six, and it will be between them in value just as it is between them in number, and the obligation is defined by the attribute of the wealth. When we consider the value, it does not lead to equality, as we stated regarding sheep.

Section: It is not permissible to extract a defective animal in place of healthy ones, even if its value is high, due to the prohibition (14) against taking them and the harm it inflicts upon the poor. For this reason, one is entitled to return it in a sale, even if its value is high. If the threshold contains both healthy and diseased animals, he should extract a healthy one whose value is proportional to the value of both types of wealth. If the entire threshold consists of diseased animals, except for the amount of the obligation, he is given the choice between extracting it or purchasing an animal of the required obligation (17) that is of low value and giving it, even if the healthy one is not of the exact number of the obligation—for instance, one upon whom two bint labun are due, and he has two healthy weaned calves (huwaran), he must purchase two healthy ones (18) and give them. And if...