398 - Issue: He said: "If he owns five camels and lets them graze for the majority of the year, then upon them is one sheep; upon ten, two sheep; upon fifteen, three sheep; and upon twenty, four sheep."

All of this is unanimously agreed upon and established by the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), according to what we have narrated and other accounts, except for his phrase: "And lets them graze for the majority of the year." It is the school of our Imam and the school of Abu Hanifah that if they are grazing livestock (sa'imah) for the majority of the year, then Zakat is due upon them. Al-Shafi'i said: If they were not grazing for the entire year, there is no Zakat upon them, because grazing is a condition for Zakat, so it is considered for the entire year, like the ownership of the complete nisab (minimum threshold). Furthermore, fodder feeding is a nullifier (of the obligation) and grazing is a cause for it, so when both are present, the nullifier prevails, just as if one owned a nisab where part of it was grazing and part of it was fodder-fed. Our position is the generality of the texts indicating the obligation of Zakat on livestock thresholds. The designation of grazing is not removed by minor fodder feeding, so it does not prevent the inclusion of the livestock in the report (hadith). Also, minor trouble (mu'nah) does not negate one's right, so they resemble those that were grazing for the entire year. Moreover, minor fodder feeding is unavoidable, so requiring it for the entire year would negate Zakat entirely, especially for one who deems it permissible to flee from Zakat; for if he wishes to drop the Zakat, he would feed them for a day and thus drop it. Additionally, this is an attribute considered for the lifting of hardship, so the majority is considered, like irrigation that involves no cost for crops and fruits. Their statement that "grazing is a condition" is open to being challenged. We say: Rather, if fodder feeding is found for half the year or more, it is a preventative factor, just as irrigation with cost is a preventer of the obligation of 'ushr (tithe), and it is not a preventer until it is found in half of the year or more; such is the case in our issue. Then, even if we conceded it were a condition, it could be [that the condition is its presence in the majority of the year].