And "what is watered by a machine or by irrigation, there is half the tithe," (4) as well as other expressions mentioned with the preposition "fi" (in), which denotes containment. The payment from other than the nisaab is only permitted as a concession. The benefit of this difference of opinion is that if it is in the liability, and two years pass over his wealth without him having paid their Zakah, he is obligated to perform the payment for what has passed, and the Zakah for the second year does not decrease. Likewise, if it were more than a nisaab, the Zakah does not decrease, even if several years pass over it. Thus, if he possessed forty sheep upon which three years had passed without him paying their Zakah, three sheep would be due from him. And if it were a hundred dinars, then seven and a half dinars would be due; because the Zakah became obligatory in his liability, so it does not affect the reduction (6) of the nisaab. However, if he possesses no other wealth from which to pay the Zakah, it is possible that the Zakah drops to the extent of its amount, because debt prevents the obligation of Zakah. Ibn Aqil said: The Zakah does not drop due to this under any circumstances, because a thing cannot cause itself to cease, even though it might cause something else to cease, as evidenced by the fact that the changing of water by an impurity in its place does not prevent the validity of its purification or the removal of that impurity by it, yet it prevents the removal of impurity from anything else. The first [view] is more appropriate, because the second Zakah is different from the first. Even if we say: The Zakah is attached to the physical asset (al-'ayn), and the nisaab was of a type where Zakah is due on its physical asset, and years had passed (7) over it without its Zakah being paid, the Zakah of the first year would be attached to the nisaab