nothing would be incumbent upon them except the zakat of mixture, so if it belongs to the owner of the first [lot], it is more appropriate; for adding some of his own property to another part of it is more appropriate than adding the property of a joint-owner to his joint-owner. If he owns in the second month what alters the obligatory amount—for instance, if he owns one hundred sheep—then he owes a second sheep for it upon the completion of its hawl, according to the first view. The same applies to the third; because we treat his ownership for the purpose of obligation as if he owned the entirety at one time, so it becomes as if he owned two hundred and forty, thus three sheep become due upon him, one sheep upon the completion of the hawl of each lot. According to the second view, he owes in the second month his share of the obligation of the two lots together, which is one sheep and three-sevenths of a sheep; because if he had owned the two lots all at once, he would have owed two sheep for them, the share of the one hundred being five-sevenths of them, which is one sheep and three-sevenths of a sheep. For the third, he owes one sheep and one-quarter; because if he had owned the entirety all at once, which is two hundred and forty sheep, he would have owed three sheep, the share of the third of which being one-fourth and one-sixth of them, which is one sheep and one-quarter. If the owner of the three lots were three distinct individuals, and the second owned his pasturing livestock intermixed with that of the first, then the third owned his pasturing livestock intermixed with theirs, the obligation on the second and third would be like the obligation on the owner in the second view, and nothing else.

Section: If a man owns twenty camels in the month of Muharram, and five in Safar, he owes for the twenty, upon the completion of their hawl, four sheep, and for the five, upon the completion of their hawl, one-fifth