of the dirhams, or the reverse—such as if he owes two hundred and fifty dirhams and has five or more camels equal to the debt or exceeding it—we place the debt in opposition to the camels in this case, whereas in the first scenario, we placed it in opposition to the dirhams; this is because he possesses wealth, other than the Nisaab, with which he can pay the debt. The same applies if he owes one hundred dirhams and has two hundred dirhams and nine camels; when we place the debt in opposition to the camels, their Nisaab is not diminished because the four camels in excess of the Nisaab are worth more than one hundred dirhams. However, if we placed the debt in opposition to the dirhams, the Zakat on them would lapse, so we placed it in opposition to the camels, as we mentioned in the preceding case, and because that is more beneficial for the poor. Al-Qadi mentioned something similar, for he said: If the two Nisaabs are both subject to Zakat, you should place the debt in opposition to that which is more beneficial to the poor, even if it is of a different kind from the debt. If one of the two types of wealth is not subject to Zakat while the other is—such as a man who owes two hundred dirhams and possesses two hundred dirhams and household goods for personal use worth two hundred dirhams—Al-Qadi said: He should place the debt in opposition to the goods. This is the school of thought of Malik and Abu Ubayd. The companions of Al-Shafi'i said: This is what his statement implies, because he is an owner of two hundred [dirhams] in excess of his debt, so Zakat upon it becomes mandatory, just as if all his wealth were of one type. The apparent opinion of Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, is that he places the debt in opposition to that from which he would pay it, for he said regarding a man who has one thousand and owes one thousand, and also has goods worth one thousand: If the goods are for trade, he pays Zakat on them, and if they are not for trade, nothing is due upon him. This is the school of thought of Abu Hanifa, and it is narrated from Al-Layth ibn Sa'd; because a debt is paid from its own kind in the event of dispute, therefore placing the debt in opposition to it is more appropriate, just as when both Nisaabs are subject to Zakat. It is possible that Ahmad's statement here is to be understood as applying to when the goods are related to his essential needs and are not in excess of his requirements, in which case he is not obligated to spend them in