Explanation of the author's statement: "It is obligatory in twenty-five camels a bint makhad, and in less than that, one sheep for every five."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he clarified the amount of zakah, saying: "It is obligatory in twenty-five camels a bint makhad, and in less than that, one sheep for every five". It is obligatory in every twenty-five camels a bint makhad, meaning a female camel that is one year old, a young virgin female that is one year old. It is called bint makhad because it is the norm that her mother has become pregnant, so she is a makhad, and a makhad is a pregnant female. And in less than that, meaning in less than twenty-five, it is one sheep for every five. So in the first five, it is one sheep; in ten, it is two sheep; in fifteen, it is three sheep; in twenty, it is four sheep; and in twenty-five, it is a bint makhad. Now, if one gave five sheep in place of the bint makhad for twenty-five camels, it would not be sufficient. And if one gave a bint makhad for twenty camels?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is a difference of opinion on this. Some say that a camel, even if it is large, is not sufficient in less than twenty-five, based on the letter written by Abu Bakr, in which he said: "And in less than that, sheep". He specified one sheep for every five in less than that, meaning in less than twenty-five, sheep, one sheep for every five. But some scholars said that if a bint makhad is sufficient in twenty-five, then its sufficiency in less than that is even more so, and the Shari'ah does not distinguish between two equal things. However, the Lawgiver waived the requirement of camels in less than twenty-five as a concession to the owner, a concession to him, and this was not for the purpose of specifying a particular type. This is the correct opinion, because everyone knows that the complete Shari'ah, which is based on rational and transmitted evidence, cannot say that one who has twenty-five camels and gives a bint makhad is excused, while one who has twenty and gives a bint makhad is not excused. So the correct view in this issue is that in less than twenty-five, camels are sufficient, whether a bint makhad, a bint labun, or older than that. Now.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is a difference of opinion on this. Some say that a camel, even if it is large, is not sufficient in less than twenty-five, based on the letter written by Abu Bakr, in which he said: "And in less than that, sheep". He specified one sheep for every five in less than that, meaning in less than twenty-five, sheep, one sheep for every five. But some scholars said that if a bint makhad is sufficient in twenty-five, then its sufficiency in less than that is even more so, and the Shari'ah does not distinguish between two equal things. However, the Lawgiver waived the requirement of camels in less than twenty-five as a concession to the owner, a concession to him, and this was not for the purpose of specifying a particular type. This is the correct opinion, because everyone knows that the complete Shari'ah, which is based on rational and transmitted evidence, cannot say that one who has twenty-five camels and gives a bint makhad is excused, while one who has twenty and gives a bint makhad is not excused. So the correct view in this issue is that in less than twenty-five, camels are sufficient, whether a bint makhad, a bint labun, or older than that. Now.