from five complete [camels], then nothing is obligatory upon him regarding them, just as if he owned four and a part of a camel. Our view is that the obligatory amount is from other than the nisaab, so the nisaab is not decreased by it, just as if he had paid it. It differs from other types of wealth (11), as the obligation of Zakah therein attaches to the physical asset itself, thus decreasing it, just as if he had paid it from the nisaab. Based on this, if he owns twenty-five camels and years pass over them (12), he is liable for a bint makhad (a one-year-old female camel) for the first year, and for every year after that, he is liable for four sheep. And if the value of the obligatory sheep reaches more than five camels (13). If it is said: If there is no bint makhad in twenty-five, then the obligation therein is from other than its physical essence, so it is required that its Zakah also not decrease in all the years. We reply: If he pays from twenty-five something greater than a bint makhad, it is permissible; thus, it is possible for the Zakah to attach to its physical essence, because it is possible to make payment from it, unlike twenty camels, for which not one [camel] is accepted from them; thus, they differ.

Section: The second ruling is that Zakah becomes obligatory upon the arrival (14) of the hawl (the passing of one full lunar year), whether he is able to make the payment or not. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, and it is one of the two views of Al-Shafi'i. In the other view, he said: Ability to make the payment is a condition. Thus, three things are required for the obligation: the hawl, the nisaab, and the ability to make the payment. This is the view of Malik. Even if he destroys the livestock after the hawl before it is possible to make payment, no Zakah is due from him, provided he did not intend to evade the Zakah; because it is an act of worship, so the possibility of performing it is a condition for its obligation, like other acts of worship. Our evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "There is no Zakah on wealth until a hawl passes over it" (15). Its implication is that it becomes obligatory upon him when the hawl passes. Furthermore, if he were not able to make the payment until two years had passed over it, the Zakah for both years would be due from him, and it is not permissible for two obligations to be due on one nisaab in one state.