the value of the extracted amount from his companion. If he takes it from the other, he shall demand one-third of the value of the extracted amount from the owner of the third. The statement to be accepted is that of the one from whom the demand is made, along with his oath, if they disagree and there is no evidence; because he is a debtor (gharim), so his statement is accepted, just like the usurper (ghasib) if they disagree regarding the value of the usurped property after it has perished.

Section: If the collector takes more than the obligatory amount without a plausible legal interpretation (ta'wil)—such as taking two sheep in place of one, or taking a jadha'a (a lamb in its second year) in place of a hiqqa (a camel in its fourth year)—the one from whom it was taken has no right to demand a return, except for the amount of the obligation. But if it is done based on a valid interpretation—such as taking a mature, healthy [sheep] in place of sickly ones, or a large one in place of small ones—then he may demand a return of the share of it; because that is subject to the ijtihad (legal reasoning) of the Imam, and when his ijtihad leads him to take it, he is obligated to pay it to him, and it becomes equivalent to the obligatory zakat. Similarly, if he takes the value [in currency], he may demand a return for the portion that pertains to his partner from it; because that is done based on an interpretation.

Section: If a man owns forty sheep in the month of Muharram, forty in Safar, and forty in Rabi', he owes one sheep for the first upon the completion of its hawl (year). When the hawl of the second is completed, there are two views: One is that there is no zakat on it, because all of it is a single ownership, so his obligation does not increase beyond a single sheep, as if his ownership periods coincided. The second is that zakat is due on it, because the first was sufficient for one sheep, so zakat becomes due on the second, and it is half a sheep, due to its intermixing with the first forty from the time he owned it. When the hawl of the third is completed, there are two views: one is that there is no zakat on it, and the second is that zakat is due on it, which is one-third of a sheep, because he owned it while it was intermixed with the preceding eighty. Abu al-Khattab mentioned a third view regarding it, which is that one full sheep is due for the second and one full sheep for the third, because it is a complete nisab (threshold) upon which zakat becomes due by itself, so a full sheep is due for it, as if it were separate. This is weak, because if the owner of the second and third were outsiders who owned them intermixed, they would not owe anything but the zakat of mixture, so if it belongs to the owner of the first, it is more appropriate; for adding some of one's own property to another part of it is more appropriate than adding a joint-owner's property to his joint-owner.