bint makhad (a one-year-old female camel), according to the first two views. And according to the third view, he owes one-sixth of a sheep. If he owns twenty-five [camels] in Muharram and five in Safar, he owes for the first, upon the completion of its hawl, a bint makhad, and nothing is due from him for the five according to the first view. According to the second view: he owes one-sixth of a bint makhad. According to the third view, he owes a sheep for them. If he also owns six [more] in Rabi‘, then according to the first view, he owes for the first, upon the completion of its hawl, a bint makhad, and nothing is due from him for the five until the hawl of the six is completed, at which point he owes for them both one-quarter of a bint labun (a two-year-old female camel) and one-half of one-ninth of it. According to the second view, he owes for the five one-sixth of a bint makhad when its hawl is completed, and for the six one-sixth of a bint labun upon the completion of its hawl. According to the third view, he owes for the second group of five a sheep upon the completion of its hawl, and for the six a sheep upon the completion of its hawl.

Section: If a man's pasturing livestock is in different regions, and between them is a distance in which prayer is not shortened, or if it is gathered together, he adds some of it to the other, and its zakat is like the zakat of intermixed property, without any disagreement that we know of. But if there is the distance of shortening prayer between the regions, then there are two reports from Ahmad regarding it; the first is that every lot of property has the ruling of itself; it is considered on its own. If it constitutes a nisab (minimum threshold), zakat is due on it, otherwise not, and it is not added to the property that is in the other region. He explicitly stated this. Ibn al-Mundhir said: I do not know of this opinion from anyone other than Ahmad. He argued with the apparent meaning of his (peace be upon him) saying: "Neither can separated property be combined, nor can combined property be separated, out of fear of the sadaqah (zakat)." This is separated, so it shall not be combined. Also, because since the gathering of two lots of property belonging to two men has an effect in them being treated like a single lot of property, it must also have an effect in the separation of a single man's property, such that it makes it like two separate lots of property.