The second report: He said concerning one who has one hundred sheep in different regions: The zakat collector should not take anything from them because separated property cannot be combined, and when the owner understands and knows this, he should pay it himself, placing it among the poor. This is narrated from al-Maymuni and Hanbal. This indicates that their zakat is obligatory despite the different regions, except that the collector does not take it because he does not find a full, gathered nisab and does not know the reality of the situation regarding them. As for the owner who knows that he possesses a full nisab, he must pay the zakat. This is the choice of Abu al-Khattab and the madhhab (school) of all the jurists. Malik said: The best I have heard regarding one who has livestock managed by two different shepherds in different regions is that this should be combined for the owner, and he should pay its zakat. This is the correct view, God willing, due to his (peace be upon him) saying: "In forty sheep, there is a sheep." Also, because it is one single property, it is similar to if it were in nearby regions, or if it were non-pasturing livestock. We interpret the statement of Ahmad in the first report to mean that the collector does not take it, but the owner pays it. According to this, he pays the mandatory amount in whichever of the two regions he wishes, as it is a place of need.

414 - Issue: He said: (And if they intermix in other than this, he takes from each of them individually, if that which belongs specifically to him is subject to zakat.)

The meaning of this is that if they intermix in things other than livestock, such as gold, silver, trade goods, crops, and fruits, their mixing does not have any effect, and their ruling is the ruling of separate individuals. This is the opinion of most scholars. There is another report from Ahmad that partnership in material assets (al-a'yan) has an effect in other than livestock.