Islamic Fiqh > Udhiya and aqiqa > Conditions of the udhiya animal: age and defects > The validity conditions of the udhiya
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
The sheets on this page go through, point by point, the validity conditions of the udhiya as the four schools debate them: the defects that void the sacrifice (ear, tail, horns, hip, sight, walking, body condition), the age of the animals, the most meritorious animal, the condition of the slaughterer, sharing with others, the purchase, the start and end of the time, night slaughter, slaughtering mistakes, the gift to the butcher, the sharing of the meat, storage, the vow and the sacrifice on behalf of a deceased person.
Each opinion is reported as the sheet assigns it, school by school and scholar by scholar, with the verses, the cited hadiths (including the grade the sheet gives them) and the books referenced at the end of each point.
The companions carry the ruling of the whole, a small part being treated like absence because tracking it proves difficult; Ibn al-Musayyib was cited earlier, and the least said about it is half or more, as Abu Muhammad writes in al-Hidaya. The second narration holds that the barrier is the loss of a third or more, chosen by Abu Bakr because the Prophet often named that threshold; others report it as the loss of more than a third. In short, the companions have two opinions on the third according to this narration, and they hold the half as the more prudent opinion, yet the disagreement over the third remains more famous than the one over the half.
The jurists then differ over the animal born without an ear: is the sacrifice with it valid? The Hanbalis, and the Shafi'is in a weak line, hold that an animal with a cut ear suffices for the udhiya. The majority group, the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is in the sound line, hold that the sakka', the one born without an ear, does not suffice and that the animal has no good in it: since the cutting of the ear bars validity, the absence of the ear from the start carries even more weight. As for the one with a small ear, it suffices, because its ear is sound even if small.
Abu Hanifa holds: if the buyer intended to acquire the animal for the udhiya, that intention amounts to making its sacrifice obligatory. Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad hold that only speech binds.
The jurists differ over the one who designates an udhiya and someone else slaughters it without his permission. The Hanbalis, and the Hanafis by istihsan against Zufar, hold that it suffices for its owner and that the slaughterer owes no compensation: the Hanbalis say slaughtering is an act that requires no intention, so when someone performs it without the sacrificer's authorization it counts for that sacrificer, like washing a garment of its impurity. The Hanafis answer: the animal was bought for slaughter and designated for that purpose, so the owner's aim is achieved and the burden of slaughtering is spared him; the animal became specific to the udhiya to the point that he had to sacrifice that very animal, so the owner may seek the help of anyone able to slaughter, and such help amounts to implicit permission, since an impediment may arise; it is like one who slaughters a ewe whose leg the butcher has already tied. They prove the absence of liability by the fact that the animal is an udhiya that sufficed for its owner and reached its function, as if the slaughter had taken place with permission; and because the shedding of the blood became specific to the right of Allah, the one who shed it owes nothing, like the one who kills the apostate without the imam's authorization.
Malik holds: if the animal was obligatory, it sufficed for its owner, and his companions differ over whether the slaughterer compensates the loss caused by the slaughter; if it was not, they differ over whether it counts and whether he guarantees it, in two narrations. Ibn Abd al-Barr reports the disagreement about the one whose udhiya was slaughtered without his permission or order: Malik is reported to have held that it does not count for the slaughterer, whether he meant to slaughter it for himself or for the owner, and that the slaughterer guarantees it; it is also reported from him that the slaughter by someone like his child or part of his family suffices. Ibn al-Qasim holds: if it is someone like his child or his family, who slaughter it only to spare him the burden, that counts, otherwise not; this is the famous position of the Maliki school.
Ibn Rushd reports the disagreement: some say the sacrifice is not valid if another slaughters it without permission; others draw a line between the friend, the child and the stranger: it counts if the slaughterer is a friend or a child, and if he is a stranger it does not, as he understands the school.
The Shafi'is hold that whoever slaughters another's udhiya without his order counts for the owner's devotional act, after which the meat follows its normal course, and the slaughterer compensates the loss caused by the slaughter: the aim of the udhiya is the owner's consecration and its distribution to the poor, slaughtering being only a means to that end, achieved even when another does the killing; slaughtering requires neither intention nor purpose, for had the owner slaughtered it by mistake it would have counted likewise. The owner therefore takes the meat and distributes it, his act not being required as in returning a deposit. The slaughterer owes the arsh, that is, the compensation of the difference between the living value and the slaughtered value, because the shedding of blood was sought and he missed it. Al-Mawardi adds: if the slaughtering takes place while time is ample, the arsh applies; if only enough time to slaughter it remained and he slaughtered it, no arsh is due, the time being reckoned. Another line holds he guarantees nothing, since he missed no aim and lightened the burden of slaughtering.
All of this applies when a stranger slaughters while the meat remains intact; if he eats it or distributes it and it cannot be recovered, this is like destruction without slaughter: the meat is owed to the sacrificer, so liability applies, and the owner buys another udhiya with what he receives. One line holds the distribution counts for the owner like the slaughter; the sound line is the first.
The sheet first cites a second line: the meat would not be forbidden beyond three days, because the argument from famine pointed to a specific time and circumstance and remained confined to them. Al-Nawawi then reports the scholars' disagreement over the use of these hadiths: some hold that keeping the meat of the udhiyas and eating from it after three days is forbidden, the prohibition remaining, as Ali and Ibn Umar said. The majority of scholars hold that eating and keeping after three days are permitted and that the prohibition was abrogated by these explicit hadiths, above all the hadith of Burayda: an abrogation of the sunna by the sunna. Others hold it is no abrogation but that the prohibition had a cause that vanished with it, according to the hadith of Salama and Aisha. It is also said the first prohibition aimed at mere disapproval, not forbiddance, and that this disapproval remains without forbidding. These add: if such a famine occurred today and people crowded upon one another, the line of Ali and Ibn Umar would be followed. The sound line holds the prohibition abrogated altogether: no forbiddance or disapproval remains; keeping beyond three days and eating freely are permitted today, by the clear text of the hadith of Burayda and others.
The jurists of the four schools agree: the butcher may not receive a share of the udhiya as payment for his work. The Prophet ordered Ali: "Make their camels kneel, give their meat and their skins in charity, and give the butcher nothing of it." Ali added: "We give him from our own."
The Messenger of Allah ordered me to take charge of his camels and to give their meat and their skins in charity, and to give the butcher nothing of it. He said: we give him from our own.
reported by Muslim (1317)
The reason: what is paid to the butcher as a wage compensates his work, and no compensation is permitted over a share of the sacrificial animal. If he is given something because of his poverty, or as a gift, there is no harm: he has a right to receive, indeed a stronger right still, for he handled the animal and his soul longed for it. Al-Nawawi states: nothing may be given to the butcher because of his slaughtering; this is the madhhab, and Ata', al-Nakha'i, Malik, Ahmad and Ishaq said it; Ibn al-Mundhir reports from Ibn Umar, Ahmad and Ishaq that the skin of one's animal may be sold and its price given in charity; Abu Thawr conceded the sale; al-Nakha'i and al-Awza'i allowed buying with it a sieve, a sifter, an axe, a scale and the like; al-Hasan al-Basri allowed giving the skin to the butcher, a position against the sunna.
The sheet opens on the broken horn in the Mudawwana: Malik holds that the animal with a broken horn suffices if it no longer bleeds; while it still bleeds, a bar applies, Malik considering this a disease among diseases. The Hanbalis hold that the loss of more than half the horn bars validity, by the hadith of Jurayj ibn Kulayb al-Nahdi from Ali:
The Messenger of Allah forbade sacrificing an animal whose horn or ear is badly damaged.
reported by at-Tirmidhi (1504), Ibn Majah (3145), Ahmad (1158) and Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (2913)
Qatada reports having conveyed this to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, who said: the damage is what reaches half and beyond. The animal with a horn broken in less than half is disliked yet counts.
Then comes the batra', the one with no tail or a cut tail. The Hanbalis hold that it counts, born tailless or cut; this is also Abu Hanifa's opinion when the tail is missing from birth. The Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is hold in general that it does not count. The Hanafis specify: if the tail was cut, the loss of more than the tail bars the sacrifice, a slight loss not mattering, for the animal is not normally free of it; were this defect counted, matters would grow too tight for people. The threshold is debated: Abu Hanifa has four narrations. Muhammad reports from him in al-Asl and al-Jami' al-Saghir that the loss of a third or less passes, and that more than a third bars it. Abu Yusuf reports that a lost third bars it and that less passes; he relates that he submitted his view to Abu Hanifa, who said: "my view is yours", Abu Yusuf's rule being that if what remains exceeds what is lost the count takes place, and if what remains is less or equal, not. Abu Abdillah al-Balkhi reports from Abu Hanifa that the loss of a quarter bars it; al-Karkhi and al-Qadi combine these views with the others. As for the animal born tailless, Muhammad holds it does not count, Abu Hanifa that it suffices.
The Malikis hold that the batra' of the kind that has a tail does not suffice, its flesh being thereby diminished; the same for half or a third of the tail lost; Ibn al-Muwazz says the third is slight, and the quarter slight by consensus. Ibn al-Arabi explains: in those lands, the entire fat of the sheep lies in their tails, their pleasure is in those fats, to the point that the animal can barely walk under the weight of its tail; that is why the scholars examined the tail; in our lands, the total absence of a tail would affect only the camels. Ibn Abd al-Barr sets out: it is reported from Ibn Umar, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-Hasan and Ibrahim that the batra' counts in the sacrificial animal. Ibn Wahb reports from al-Layth, from Yahya ibn Sa'id, that he disliked the loss of the tail, the one-eyed, the marrowless and the loss of the ear or half of it; al-Layth disliked sacrificing the tailless. Abu Umar reports a raised hadith of the Prophet through Shu'ba, from Jabir al-Ju'fi, from Muhammad ibn Qaraza, from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:
I bought a ram to sacrifice, and a wolf ate part of its tail or its whole tail; I went to the Prophet and asked him, and he said: sacrifice it.
reported by Ahmad (11838)
The hadith of Jabir al-Ju'fi is no proof despite his memorization, because of his bad line: the imams, among them al-Thawri and Shu'ba, nonetheless narrated from him; the wolf may have eaten a slight part of the tail, and such a part passes with the scholars.
The Shafi'is hold that the animal with a cut tail may not be sacrificed, for the loss of a limb, a raised report of the Prophet forbidding the sacrifice of the tailless; the one born without a tail is no better, with one exception: if a goat is born without a tail, it suffices.
The majority group, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, states the text: the animal born without horns counts, among cattle as among sheep; this deficiency touches neither the meat nor the aim of the sacrifice, and no prohibition came about it. Ibn Abd al-Barr even reports a consensus: the scholars agree that the hornless animal may be slaughtered; this consensus shows that the disapproved defect is the one that wounds the animal and reduces its price and its fat. Ibn Hamid, of the Hanbalis, holds the reverse: no slaughtering of the hornless animal, since the loss of more than half the horn bars it, total loss weighing all the more.
On the broken horn, the Hanafis and the Shafi'is hold that the count takes place, and so for the animal hornless from birth; proof by the hadith of Hujayya:
A man asked Ali about the cow. He said: one for seven. The man said: with a broken horn? He said: it does you no harm. The man said: the lame one? He said: when it reaches the place of the rite, slaughter it. The Messenger of Allah ordered us to examine the eye and the ear.
reported by Ahmad (734) and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (7535)
Al-Shafi'i develops: the horn touches nothing, the hornless animal may be sacrificed, and the broken-horned one counts even more, whether it bleeds or not; if the horn bleeds, the animal becomes sick through that blood, but only grave sickness bars it, slight or heavy breakage passing otherwise. The Malikis hold that a broken horn that bleeds, that is, while the blood flows, bars the sacrifice; if it has healed, the count takes place, as the Mudawwana sets out.
The jurists differ when the hip is missing from birth or is cut. The one born without hips: the slaughter is allowed by Abu Hanifa and the Shafi'is, the goat having no hips and holding in the sacrificial animals the rank of the sheep; the same if it has small hips. The Malikis and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan hold that the absence of hips bars the sacrifice. The one whose hips are cut: among the Hanafis, the loss of more than the hip bars it, a slight loss not mattering, for the animal is not normally free of it; the threshold follows the four narrations already cited: Muhammad reports that a lost third or less passes; Abu Yusuf that the third bars it; Abu Yusuf further reports Abu Hanifa's approval of the rule of what remains against what is lost; Abu Abdillah al-Balkhi reports that the quarter bars it; al-Karkhi and al-Qadi report these views together. For the animal born tailless, Muhammad holds the bar and Abu Hanifa the permission. The sheet then repeats, word for word, the whole discussion of the tail: the Maliki view on the batra' of the kind that has a tail, Ibn al-Arabi's explanation of the tail fat, the reports of Ibn Abd al-Barr, Ibn Wahb and al-Layth, the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri transmitted by Jabir al-Ju'fi and its criticism, and the Shafi'i view on the cut tail with the exception of the goat born without a tail, content already rendered above in the preceding section.
The sheet opens on the skin and the meat: the Hanafis allow selling the skin and buying with its price durable objects useful to the house, sieve, water skin and the like, not consumables such as vinegar, salt, wheat or milk; the meat follows the skin in the sound line. If the skin and the meat were sold for coins, dirhams or wheat, the price is given in charity, the devotional act having moved to the price.
The jurists set the agreement: if the deceased willed a sacrifice, it counts without disagreement; the same if he vowed it. They differ over the sacrifice for a deceased who left no bequest: the majority group, the Hanafis in the sound line, the Malikis and the Shafi'is in the madhhab, hold it disliked and without effect for the deceased. Al-Kasani adds: if one of the partners is among those who sacrifice for a deceased person, it counts. Abu Yusuf is reported to forbid it; al-Asl sets the case of seven partners in a camel, one dying before the slaughter, the heir accepting that it be slaughtered for the deceased: it counts by istihsan, analogy giving the bar; analogy says his death closed his slaughter and the heir's slaughter does not count for him, his share becoming meat and blocking the slaughter of the rest; istihsan answers that death does not prevent a devotional act done on his behalf, charity and hajj for him being allowed, and that the Prophet slaughtered two rams, one for himself and one for those of his community who do not sacrifice, among them possibly one who had died before slaughtering. Ibn Nujaym cites al-Kubra: slaughtering for the deceased without his order does not count, this being the choice; one narration allows it.
The sheet notes the disagreement over the better act for the deceased: some prefer charity, others the udhiya. The Malikis dislike the sacrifice for the deceased: nothing came from the Prophet, his companions or any of the early generations, and the aim is mostly display; unless the deceased designated it before death without slaughter or vow, its execution by the heir being recommended; if he designated it by vow or by slaughter, its execution becomes obligatory upon the heir. The Shafi'is hold there is no sacrifice for a deceased who left no bequest, by the verse
Man has nothing but what he strives for.
Surah an-Najm, 39
and in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, al-Bayhaqi and al-Hakim, Ali used to slaughter two rams for himself and two for the Prophet, saying the Messenger of Allah had ordered him to sacrifice for him and that he would never stop; yet this hadith goes through the line of Sharik the judge and is weak. The Shafi'is in one line and the Hanbalis allow the sacrifice for the deceased without a bequest, for it is a form of charity, valid for him and beneficial, by the hadith of Hanash from Ali:
Ali used to slaughter two rams, one for the Prophet and one for himself; he was asked, and he said: he ordered me this, I shall never abandon it.
weak hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (2790), at-Tirmidhi (1495) and Ahmad (843)
Al-Nawawi reports that Abu al-Hasan al-Abbadi permitted the sacrifice for the deceased without reserve, as a form of charity, the deceased's charity being valid and beneficial by consensus; the author of al-'Udda and al-Baghawi validate it only with a bequest, and al-Rafi'i concludes so in al-Mujarrad. The hadith of Ali is reported by Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi and al-Bayhaqi; al-Bayhaqi says that, should it stand, it shows the validity of sacrificing for the deceased. Ibn Taymiyya concludes: the sacrifice for the deceased counts like the hajj and the charity done for him; he is sacrificed for in the house, and nothing is slaughtered by the grave, neither udhiya nor anything else.
The sheet grounds the frame in Surah al-Hajj 34, which bears on the livestock: camels, cattle and sheep. The jurists differ over the most meritorious: the camel then the bovine then the sheep then the goat? Or the sheep first? The majority group, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, holds the order camel, bovine, sheep, goat, then the sharing of a camel by seven, then that of a cow. The top of the sacrificial animals: the camel of two full years, then the bovine of two years, then the sheep of two years, then the goat of two years. The proofs: Surah al-Hajj 36 on the camels,
The camels We have made for you among the rites of Allah: in them you find good.
Surah al-Hajj, 36
the hadith of Abu Hurayra:
Whoever washes on Friday the washing of major impurity then comes early equals the one who slaughters a camel; whoever comes at the second hour equals the one who slaughters a cow; at the third, the one who slaughters a horned ram; at the fourth, the one who slaughters a fowl; at the fifth, the one who slaughters an egg; when the imam comes out, the angels present themselves to listen to the remembrance.
reported by al-Bukhari (841) and Muslim (850)
the report of Jabir: slaughter only a beast of two full years, save difficulty, then a sheep of six months; the camel covering seven shares, it outranks the sheep covering one. This holds for the one who wants to slaughter alone; if seven join so that each is a sacrificer by his share, the sheep becomes better than the camel's share. The deep reason: the more the animal costs and yields meat, the more it profits the poor, and filling need is sought by the Law.
The Malikis hold that the best of the sacrificial animals is the sheep, by Surah al-Saffat 107: the ransom of Ismail took place by a momentous slaughter, a ram, not a camel nor a cow; had Allah known a beast better than the ram, He would have ransomed by it; the sheep has the softest and most desirable meat. It is also the Prophet's act, Anas reporting:
The Prophet used to slaughter two horned rams, white and marked; he would place his foot on their side and slaughter them with his hand.
reported by al-Bukhari (5564) and Muslim (1966)
A weak hadith adds: "The best of the udhiyas is the ram" (Abu Dawud 3156, at-Tirmidhi 1517). The revival of Ibrahim's story is also meant: Allah described the slaughter as momentous, a quality that bears not only on the body but on the meaning, the believer imitating the ransom. Malik distinguished the sacrificial animals and the offerings: in the first, one seeks the quality and tenderness of the meat, a devotional offering proper to the household; in the second, the abundance of meat for the poor, the camel and the cow serving that aim. Al-Nawawi concludes: the scholars agree that the camel outranks the cow in the offering; in the udhiya they differed: the madhhab of al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa and the majority group keeps the order camel, cow, sheep, and Malik holds the sheep.
The jurists agree that the sacrificer may eat from his udhiya, by Surah al-Hajj 28, and by the hadith of Thawban:
The Messenger of Allah slaughtered his animal, then said: O Thawban, prepare for me the meat of this animal; he served it to him without interruption until his arrival in Medina.
reported by Muslim (1975)
They also agree that he may keep from it for himself and his family, by the hadith of Jabir: the Prophet had forbidden eating the meat of the animals after three days, then said: "Eat, make provision and keep" (al-Bukhari 1719, Muslim 1972). They agree last that he may feed the rich as the poor: since he may eat from it while rich, so may the others.
The disagreement bears on the most meritorious sharing. The Hanafis, the Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis hold the best sharing in three thirds: a third in charity, a third for hosting relatives, a third for oneself; one is advised not to reduce the charity below the third, and giving the whole is better, by Surah al-Hajj 36 which mentions three categories. Alqama reports: "Abd Allah sent me with his offering and ordered me to eat a third, send a third to the family of his brother Utba, and give a third in charity." Ibn Umar reports: "The sacrificial animal is a third for you, a third for your family, a third for the poor." The Shafi'is of the old school hold the half: he eats, keeps and gives half, and gives the other to the poor, by Surah al-Hajj 28 which mentions two categories:
Eat from them and feed the wretched, the poor.
Surah al-Hajj, 28
The Malikis hold that no sharing is fixed: the owner may eat, give to the poor, offer to his people; should he limit himself to one of these lines, he leaves the most meritorious. Malik says: the agreement among us is that there is in the sacrificial animals neither a described portion nor a known limit.
The sheet first closes the debate on the counted days: none disputes that they are the days of tashriq, three after the day of slaughter, save the report of Sa'id ibn Jubayr who counted that very day among them; the disagreement bears on the days mentioned in Surah al-Hajj 28. Ibn Rushd then sets out the position of the one who holds the day of slaughter alone, resting on the first ten days: a consensus having settled that the slaughter takes place only on the tenth day, that day is the designated place of the sacrifice.
The jurists agree on the validity of daytime slaughter during the days of tashriq. They differ over the night: permitted despite disapproval, or without effect? The majority group, the Hanafis, the Malikis in one line, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold that the slaughter counts by day as by night: the night is a time in which the throwing is valid, so the slaughter is valid in it as by day; night slaughter remains disliked by a raised report:
The Prophet forbade slaughtering by night.
fabricated hadith, reported by al-Tabarani in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir (11458)
for fear of a cutting error or injury to the animal, and of delaying the distribution of fresh meat; one who slaughters by night still counts: the bar on keeping beyond three days includes the night, the day being said with its night, Surah al-Hajj 36 bears on the time of slaughter without separating night and day, and the night is one of the two aims of the udhiya with the distribution. The Malikis in the famous view, and the Hanbalis in the narration chosen by al-Khiraqi, forbid slaughtering during the nights of the days of tashriq, on the letter of Surah al-Hajj 28: the day designates the time from dawn to sunset; night slaughter does not suffice for the obligation, and if it is a voluntary act, the animal becomes ordinary meat whose distribution grants the devotional reward. Ibn Rushd explains the cause of the disagreement: the word day sometimes designates the night with the day, as in Surah Hud 65, sometimes the day alone, as in Surah al-Haqqah 7; the one who lets the word carry both allows night slaughter, the other forbids it, the word sounding clearer for the day.
The jurists differ: is the end of the time the third day of the Eid or the fourth? The majority group, the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis, holds that the time runs to the sunset of the twelfth day of Dhu al-Hijja: the days of the udhiya are three, the day of slaughter and two after; slaughtering not being allowed in a time where keeping is not, by the hadith:
The Prophet forbade keeping the meat of the sacrificial animals beyond three days.
reported by al-Bukhari (5107) and Muslim (1970)
the best of these three days being the first, through the haste to perform the offering. The Shafi'is hold the end at the sunset of the thirteenth day, the three days of tashriq after the day of slaughter, by the hadith:
All the days of tashriq are days of slaughter.
reported by Ahmad (16797) and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (3854)
Ibn Rushd sets out the state of the question: Malik holds the end at the third day of slaughter at its sunset, Abu Hanifa and Ahmad with him; al-Shafi'i and al-Awza'i count four days; a group holds the day of slaughter alone; it is also said until the end of Dhu al-Hijja, an isolated view without proof. The causes of the disagreement are two: the counted days of Surah al-Hajj 27, the day of slaughter and two days after by the famous view, or the first ten days by others; and the apparent conflict with the hadith of Jubayr ibn Mut'im: "All the valleys of Mecca are places of slaughter, and all the days of tashriq are days of slaughter."
The Hanafis hold that the rich man who did not slaughter before the end of the days of slaughter must give the value of the animal in charity, whether he bought it or not: the udhiya is obligatory upon his estate and leaves it only by performance, like the Friday prayer made up at midday or the fast ransomed after its breaking. If he is poor and bought the animal or bound himself by vow, he gives that very animal in charity: it became specific through the purchase with intention or through the vow, nothing else sufficing. The Malikis hold that the one who kept his animal until the end of all the days does with it what he wants, sale or otherwise, since none slaughters after the days of slaughter; he sinned by withholding it and stands like one who did not sacrifice, whether the animal was vowed or voluntary, designation taking place only through slaughter in the sound line. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold that the obligatory animal is slaughtered as make-up and then follows the lot of the animal slaughtered in time: the duty to slaughter does not fall with the passing of the time. If it was voluntary, the time has gone and he is free: if he distributes the meat, the devotional reward is gained by the distribution without the slaughter, the animal being ordinary meat. Ibn Qudama adds: if the animal was lost or stolen without negligence on his part, no liability weighs on him, it being a deposit in his hand; if it returns, he slaughters it, in time or after.
The sheet opens on the liability due in the case of slaughtering another's animal: the famous line, chosen by the majority group, holds the value of the animal at the time of slaughter, as if it had been destroyed without slaughter; the second line holds the greater of its value and the value of the meat. Then comes the mistake: what of the one who errs and slaughters another's udhiya, or of two men who each slaughter the other's? The Hanafis by istihsan and the Hanbalis hold that the two count for each other: each takes his animal back from its owner without liability, the slaughterer standing as his deputed agent by implication; this is istihsan with the Hanafis, the basis being that one who slaughters another's udhiya without permission keeps nothing for himself and guarantees its value, without that sufficing him, per Zufar; istihsan allows the count and lifts the liability because the animal became specific to the slaughter to the point that the owner had to slaughter that very animal in the days of slaughter, is disliked to replace it, and may therefore seek the help of any able slaughterer, implicit permission, like the butcher who has tied the ewe's leg. Analogy, with Zufar, holds the liability: he slaughtered another's animal without order, so he guarantees it. Al-Qadi and other Hanbalis hold it counts without liability by istihsan, analogy giving the liability. Al-Athram reports that the two return the meat to each other if it exists and that the count takes place, each free to distribute what he slaughtered by the Law's permission.
The Malikis hold that one who slaughters his animal then errs and slaughters another's believing it his own counts for neither of the two: not for the owner, for lack of intention, nor for himself, for lack of ownership; this is the famous view, and he guarantees the owner the value. The same if each slaughters the other's by mistake. Muhammad ibn Rushd reports the wording of this narration: one who slaughters another's offering by mistake for himself counts for neither of the two. The Mudawwana holds it counts for its owner through the garlanding and marking. Muhammad ibn al-Mawwaz holds it counts for the slaughterer if the owner made him bear its value without taking the meat. Ibn Habib distinguishes: if the owner comes while the meat is still in the slaughterer's hand, no count; if he makes him bear the value, a count is possible, an esteemed view that joins the question of the offerings; the soundest there is that another's slaughter counts for no one, the pilgrim's animal having become obligatory for another through garlanding and marking, and no act standing without intention, by the saying: "deeds are only by intentions"; for the sacrificial animals, the count for the compensated slaughterer without taking the meat remains debated. The Shafi'is treat the case of two sacrificers each slaughtering the other's animal without order: if each distributes the meat, the sacrifice counts for neither of the two, each guarantees his companion's animal's value, and no sharing of the value is allowed; on the value, the majority group holds the living value, as a wrongdoer, and Abu Ali ibn Abi Hurayra holds the greater of the living value and the value of the meat after slaughter, al-Mawardi preferring the second; if each keeps his animal whole, each takes his meat without exchange, and the arsh of the slaughter weighs, to be spent along three lines: to the sacrificer alone, to the poor alone, or in the course of the sacrificial animals.
No disagreement: deputizing the slaughter is allowed, the Prophet having deputed the one who would slaughter the rest of his camels after sixty-three animals. Ibn Rushd reports that the scholars prefer that the sacrificer slaughter with his own hand, and agree on the validity of deputizing. Ibn Qudama adds that mentioning for whom one slaughters is not required: the intention suffices, no disagreement being known; mentioning is a good thing. The disagreement bears on the slaughterer's faith: may a man of the Book slaughter the udhiya? All agree the Magian may not, his animal not being lawful. The Malikis in the famous view, and Ahmad in one narration, require a Muslim: the udhiya is a devotional offering and the disbeliever is not of the people of nearness; slaughter by a man of the Book does not make the animal uneatable, but it keeps no udhiya status, as with the offering, the ransom and the 'aqiqa; skinning and cutting by a disbeliever of the Book remain allowed; the Muslim who neglects prayer may slaughter with disapproval, and repeating is recommended. The majority group, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, plus the ashhab of the Malikis, hold it is recommended that only a Muslim slaughter: the offering is entrusted only to the people of nearness, and deputizing a dhimmi remains valid with disapproval. The sheet then cites the proof of those who allow slaughter by a man of the Book: Surah al-Ma'ida 5 makes their food lawful,
The food of those given the Scripture is lawful for you.
Surah al-Ma'ida, 5
the wording bearing on the sacrificial animals as on the rest; any man of the Book may slaughter the udhiya as the Muslim does, the slaughter counting from both, like ritual killing; and the disbeliever's help does not bar the count, as with his deputizing in distributing the zakats, the expiations, and building mosques and bridges.
The sheet opens on the age of the Maliki bovine: the thani is the one that has completed three years and entered the fourth. It then sets the condition: the animal must be free of defects. The people of knowledge agree: not the plainly one-eyed, nor the blind, nor the plainly lame, nor the marrowless thin one. The proof is the hadith of al-Bara' ibn Azib, reported by Ubayd ibn Fayruz:
Four do not count in the sacrificial animals: the plainly one-eyed, the plainly sick, the plainly lame, and the broken one with no marrow; in one narration, the thin one with no marrow.
sahih hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (2802), at-Tirmidhi (1497), an-Nasa'i (4369), Ibn Majah (3144) and Ahmad (18565)
Ubayd said he asked about a defect of tooth, ear or horn, and al-Bara' reported from the Prophet's mouth: "What you dislike, leave it, and do not forbid it to anyone." Ibn Abd al-Barr comments: the four defects carry consensus, no disagreement being known, and everything sharing their meaning enters their scope, especially when the ailment is plain: the blind more still than the one-eyed; the animal with a cut leg, no leg or unable to stand more still than the lame; the hadith also proves that mild sickness and the slight limp that lets the animal follow the flock do not matter, as with a spot in the eye if slight and a thinness not reaching the extreme; the cutting of the ear or its greater part remains a defect avoided by the agreement of most scholars.
The Hanafis set as a condition of validity that the sacrificer share the animal with no one who does not seek nearness: should such sharing take place, the sacrifice counts for none, as with every offering, the expiation blood or the pilgrimage animal. If seven join in a camel or a cow, all seeking nearness, and one alone wants the meat, the sacrifice counts for none; nearness lies in the shedding of the blood, a single slaughter not dividing. If all seek nearness, their aims may differ: udhiya for one, hunting expiation for another, pilgrimage animal for a third, expiation of an ihram violation, voluntary offering, blood of tamattu' or qiran: the count takes place, voluntary or obligatory, the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. Zufar admits the sharing only if the aims are identical: slaughter is one act, it does not divide; the three imams answer that the aims, diverse in form, are one in meaning: all seek nearness to Allah, including the 'aqiqa of a child born before. Al-Kasani reports that Abu Hanifa disliked sharing with differing aims, and that if one partner is a dhimmi wanting the meat or nearness in his religion, the count does not take place, nearness not being realized from the disbeliever. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis allow the sharing of the camel or the cow among seven, voluntary or obligatory, with identical or differing aims, one partner may want his share as meat, the partners being of one house or different houses: each one's share is counted by his intention, not by another's; a single person may slaughter a camel for seven sheep owed from different causes. The Malikis bar the sharing of the udhiya in the price or in the meat, but allow sharing the slaughter fee before the act; beyond seven, the sharing counts only if three conditions meet: the partner is a relative, child, brother, cousin or wife; he is in the sacrificer's care, obligation or not; he lives with him in one house. Should the conditions meet, the udhiya's sunna falls away from the partner if he is rich; should a single condition fail, the sacrifice counts for neither of the two.
No disagreement: none may slaughter before the time enters, the time being a condition of obligation and of validity like the prayer's time: no slaughter before the rising of the second dawn of the day of slaughter. The disagreement bears on the exact moment. The Hanafis hold the time enters after the dawn of the day of slaughter for city dwellers as for villagers, with an added condition for the cities: the Eid prayer must have taken place, by the hadith of Anas:
The Messenger of Allah said on the day of slaughter: whoever slaughtered before the prayer, let him repeat it.
reported by al-Bukhari (1962) and Muslim (1962)
the other wording bearing that one who slaughters before the prayer slaughters only for himself, and one who slaughters after has performed his rite and followed the sunna of the Muslims (al-Bukhari 5226, Muslim 1961); should the imam delay the prayer, one may slaughter at midday; the reference is to the prayer, not the sermon, the Prophet having subordinated the slaughter to the prayer; villagers slaughter after dawn, the Eid prayer not being obligatory on them; the place of the animal is considered, not that of the man. The Malikis hold the time starts after the imam's slaughter or his deputy's: slaughtering before him or with him does not count, save if one finishes after him; the time of his slaughter counts even if he does not slaughter. The Shafi'is hold the rising of the sun on the day of slaughter, a spear's height and the span of two light rak'as and two sermons, whether one prayed or not; by the hadith of al-Bara':
Our first work this day is the prayer, then we return and slaughter; whoever does so follows our sunna, and one who slaughters before the prayer gives only meat for his family, no rite at all.
reported by al-Bukhari (922, 925, 933, 5225, 5240) and Muslim (1961)
no difference between cities and villages. The Hanbalis have four views: the sound one of the school holds the time after the Eid prayer for the cities and villages that pray, an imam's earlier prayer sufficing; the second adds the sermon; the third, al-Khiraqi's choice, holds a span of time in which prayer and sermons could have taken place, the prayer itself not being counted, no difference between cities and villages; the fourth allows only after the imam, in his city. Ibn Rushd sets the ground: Malik forbids slaughtering before the imam, Abu Hanifa and al-Thawri allow slaughtering after the prayer before the imam's slaughter; the cause lies in the versions of the hadith of Abu Burda ibn Niyar, one saying before the prayer, the other before the Prophet's slaughter; the one with no imam in his town, Malik sends to watch for the nearest imam's slaughter, al-Shafi'i makes him wait the span of the prayer and the sermon, Abu Hanifa lets him slaughter after dawn, others after sunrise; Malik's companions differed over the imam who does not slaughter at the prayer place.
The sheet first closes a transmission debate: the one who holds the rule of the particular subordinated to the general, by the famous method of the legal theorists, excepts the jadha' of sheep named by the text, which is the more prudent; some authenticated the hadith and criticized Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm for his remark on Abu al-Zubayr. The jurists differ over the definition: the Hanafis in one line, the Malikis in the famous view and the Shafi'is in the sound line hold that the jadha' is the one that has completed the year; the Shafi'is add that if its teeth have fallen before the term, it counts, like adulthood by sign before the age. The Hanafis in one line, the Malikis in one line, the Hanbalis in the madhhab and the Shafi'is in one way hold six months entering the seventh, the Hanafis adding the condition that it be large enough to be mistaken from afar for a two-year-old. Al-Khiraqi defines it by a sign: the wool stays upright on its back as long as it is a lamb; when the wool lies down on its back, it has reached the jadha'. Other measures exist: eight months with the Malikis in one line, the Shafi'is in one way and the Hanbalis in one way; eight full months with the Malikis in another line; six months if born between two adult beasts, otherwise eight, with the Shafi'is in one way; seven months in a Hanafi line; al-Za'farani reports seven, or eight or nine, below that being but a lamb.
The sheet opens on a neighboring rule: from the obligatory animal none eats, the vowed animal applying over it; one who eats from it replaces it with equivalent meat, the same if he gives to the butcher, sells or destroys; if a stranger destroys from it, he guarantees the value. Then the subject: the jurists of the four schools agree that keeping the meat beyond three days is allowed, by the hadith of Jabir: the Prophet had forbidden eating from it after three days, then said: "Eat, make provision and keep" (al-Bukhari 1719, Muslim 1972). Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr and Amra report Aisha's words: the year when Bedouins streamed into Medina in the Prophet's time, he told them: "Keep three days, then give the rest in charity"; later, people showed him they were keeping their water skins and preparing their stores, and he answered: "I had forbidden it to you only because of the famine that struck; eat, keep and give in charity" (Muslim 1971). Ibn Abd al-Barr concludes the prohibition was abrogated by the permission, no disagreement among the Muslim scholars. Ibn Battaal adds that Malik, the Kufans, al-Shafi'i and the group of the imams said it permitted. Ibn Qudama: keeping beyond three days is allowed by most of the people of knowledge. Al-Mawardi explains the word for famine then sets two readings among the Shafi'is: the prohibition would have borne on all in Medina that year, a cause without lasting legal reason, then lifted by abrogation, all the companions applying it save Ali; or the prohibition was tied to that very famine, its reason vanishing with it, the permission being information and not abrogation; should such a famine occur, the disapproval of keeping becomes debated again along the two lines.
The sheet opens on the rule of the Shafi'is in the sound line and the Hanbalis: from the ordinary udhiya, eating is recommended and charity obligatory; eating everything does not suffice, one must give in charity the equivalent of the share over which the name was pronounced; giving the whole is better, save a blessed bite, the Prophet having eaten from the liver of his camels. The proof of the obligation of a share: Surah al-Hajj 36 makes the camels a good for us, not a burden, eating remaining lawful; and the udhiya's wording follows that of the zakat in Surah al-An'am 141: eating lawful, giving due. Then the subject: with the majority group, one who vowed does not eat from his animal. The Hanafis hold that the vow to slaughter a ewe or to sacrifice without naming lays the vow upon that ewe, the vower does not eat, and if he eats he owes its value, the animal's course being charity, and the giver does not eat of his charity. The Malikis bar eating from a vow named for the poor by word or by intention; the vow for unnamed poor allows eating before its destination; the vow not aimed at the poor allows eating, provisioning and feeding the rich as the poor, whether the animal reaches its destination or perishes. Among the Shafi'is, al-Shirazi distinguishes: the vow over an obligation bars eating, the animal being the replacement of a duty; the vow of reward, healing or an absent one's return, bars it too like the hunting expiation, eating incurring a debt debated along three lines: the value, the equivalent in meat, or a share of a similar animal; the absolute vow is debated along three lines: a bar like all obligatory blood, permission by carrying it over the established custom, or permission in the udhiya and not in the offering. Al-Nawawi develops these cases in his commentary. The Hanbalis bar eating from the animal vowed to Allah and from the vowed udhiya in the sound line; Abu Bakr allowed it and Ibn Qudama inclined to the permission: the vow applies over the custom, the established udhiya is eaten, and the vow changes of the object only the obligation; al-Qadi reports that some forbid it, Ahmad's apparent word, resting on the vowed offering.
The sheet opens on al-Mawardi's rule: age counts in the sacrificial animals, nothing below the jadha' suffices, nothing beyond the thani is required. The jurists of the four schools agree that the jadha' of sheep suffices, by the hadith of Jabir:
Slaughter only a beast of two full years, save if that is hard for you; then slaughter a jadha' of sheep.
reported by Muslim (1963)
by the hadith of Uqba ibn Amir, to whom the Prophet gave sheep to share out, the oldest remaining: "Slaughter it yourself" (Ibn Majah 3138); by the hadith of Abu Kibash: "The jadha' of the sheep is an excellent sacrificial animal" (at-Tirmidhi 1499, Ahmad 9737); by the hadith of Umm Bilal bint Hilal: "The jadha' of the sheep suffices as a sacrificial animal" (Ibn Majah 3139, Ahmad 27118); by the hadith of Mujashi': "The jadha' accomplishes what the two-year-old accomplishes" (Ibn Majah 3140); and by the hadith of Uqba: "We slaughtered the jadha' of the sheep with the Messenger of Allah" (Ibn Hibban 5904). Al-Nawawi reports the consensus recorded by Qadi Iyad: the jadha' of the sheep counts, that of the goat not; the literal reading of Jabir's hadith, the jadha' reserved to cases of hardship, is interpreted as the more meritorious, the umma being unanimous on the opposite, Ibn Umar and al-Zuhri excepted in one report. Al-Tahawi reports the consensus of the jurists of the cities. Ibn Abd al-Barr knows no disagreement: the jadha' of the goat and of any beast other than the sheep does not count, only the two-year-old and beyond counting; the sheep's jadha' counts by the established sunna, including for the offerings. The proof of the exclusion is the hadith of Abu Burda ibn Niyar, reported by Yazid ibn al-Bara' from his father:
The Prophet preached on the day of slaughter, then said: whoever prayed our prayer and slaughtered our slaughter has performed the rite; one who slaughters before the prayer gives only meat. Abu Burda rose and said: by Allah, I slaughtered before going out to the prayer, knowing this day is a day of eating and drinking; I hastened, ate and fed my family and neighbors. The Prophet said: it is only meat. Abu Burda said: I have a six-month goat, better than two meat animals; does it suffice me? The Prophet said: yes, and it will count for no one after you.
reported by al-Bukhari (940, 941) and Muslim (1961); the version of Yazid ibn al-Bara' reported by Ahmad (18512)
The word jadha' here designates the goat, the context requiring it, the sheep's jadha' counting. Ibn Battaal specifies the six-month goat does not count, the two-year goat entering its second year being the limit. Ibn Rushd concludes: consensus on excluding the goat's jadha', disagreement over the sheep's jadha', the majority group allowing it, others requiring the two-year-old; the disagreement is born of setting Jabir's hadith, particular, against Abu Burda's, general, and Ibn Hazm leaned to the general while suspecting Abu al-Zubayr's transmission.
The sheet first cites the confirmations of consensus on the four defects: Ibn Hazm reports their agreement on the one-eyed, the blind, the lame that cannot reach the slaughter and the sick without hope of healing, as well as the marrowless thin one; Ibn Hubayra reports their agreement on the animal whose defect touches its meat; al-Nawawi and Ibn Qudama confirm it. The disagreement bears on the other defects, first the ear. All agree the animal with the ear wholly cut does not count. If a part is cut: the Hanafis hold, in Abu Hanifa's apparent narration, that the loss of more than a third bars and the third or less passes; Bishr's narration holds less than a third passes and more not, by the saying: "a third and a third are much"; the narration of Ibn Shuja' holds the quarter bars, the quarter carrying the rank of the whole like the wiping of the head. Abu Yusuf holds that if the majority of the eye and the ear remains, the count takes place, and Abu Hanifa approved his rule: if the loss reaches half, a bar, disapproval prevailing by precaution at equality; the slit of the ear remains a slight defect, like the brand, barring nothing. The Malikis hold that the loss of more than a third of the ear or its slitting beyond a third bars, a third or less not mattering, by the hadith of Ali:
The Prophet ordered us to examine the eye and the ear, and not to sacrifice the animal with the ear cut at the tip, nor slit on both sides, nor split, nor pierced.
weak hadith, reported by at-Tirmidhi (1498), an-Nasa'i (4373), Ibn Majah (3142) and Ahmad (1274)
Abu Umar fixes the definitions: the muqabila is the ear cut at the tip, the mudabbara cut on both sides, the sharqa' split, the kharga' pierced; the cutting of the whole ear or its greater part is a defect avoided without disagreement. The Shafi'is hold the cut ear bars; if a part is cut: if nothing has come off, the split tip hanging, no hindrance on the sound line; al-Qaffal holds the bar; if a part has come off, the bar is plain if the loss is great, and held too if slight on the sound line, an edible part having vanished; Imam al-Haramayn proposes the measure: the defect seen from afar is great, otherwise small. The Hanbalis hold that the loss of more than half the ear or the horn bars, by the hadith of Jurayj ibn Kulayb cited above; they rest too on the hadith of Ali: "The Prophet ordered us to examine the eye and the ear" (an-Nasa'i 4376, Ibn Majah 3143, Ibn Khuzayma 2914), a hasan sahih hadith, and dislike the ear split, pierced or touched, the first hadith remaining weak; al-Qadi specifies the kharga' is the pierced ear, the prohibition of mere disapproval: Ibn Qudama confirms the count, no disagreement, the demand of total soundness being near impossible. Al-Zarkashi concludes: the damage is cutting in general, and the damage that bars is the one carrying off the greater part of the ear or the horn by the more famous narration.
The sheet opens on the intention at the moment of slaughter: with the majority, intention alone does not suffice for the designated voluntary act, the sound line requiring speech; the imam and al-Ghazali hold the intention sufficient. If one has bound himself then designated an animal in replacement, the question follows the disagreement over designation; if one has deputed with intention at the moment of slaughter, that suffices without the deputy's intention. Al-Zarkashi specifies: saying "I have made this animal an udhiya" dispenses from renewing the intention at slaughter, as does the named vow; a vow left upon the estate then designated requires the intention at the moment of slaughter.
The jurists differ over the purchase: does the animal bought with the intention of the udhiya become obligatory? The Hanafis in one line and the Malikis in one line hold that it does, purchase with intention amounting to a vow. Ibn Nujaym details: the rich buyer is not bound by the agreement of the narrations; the poor buyer is bound by the purchase alone in the apparent narration, al-Za'farani reporting the opposite, and al-Sarakhsi and al-Halwani inclining to it; should the purchase carry a declaration, the binding takes place for the poor man. The Fatawa of Samarqand hold that the poor man may eat from the animal he bound himself to slaughter per Badi' al-Din, Qadi Burhan al-Din forbidding it; if the poor man's animal is stolen, replaced then found, he slaughters both; if it strays, no replacement; the rich man replaces. If the animal was bought for trade then destined to the udhiya and the days pass, no charity is due. The majority group, the Hanafis in one line, the Malikis in the famous view, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that only speech binds, by vow, neither the purchase nor the naming. The Malikis specify: the udhiya binds only by the vow, per Qadi Isma'il, or by the slaughter, per Ibn Rushd; the famous view holds the slaughter alone. Bahram al-Damiri counts five causes of designation: the vow, the slaughter, the declaration, the naming and the purchase; al-Dhakhira holds the first two as the famous view; al-Jawahir adds that saying "I have made this animal an udhiya" designates it; Malik in al-Utbiyya grants no naming, which diminishes the animal, Ibn Rushd confirming, a binding naming being reported otherwise; Isma'il the Qadi makes the declaration designate, a view judged far-fetched. Al-'Amrani holds the buyer acquires ownership without the animal becoming an udhiya. Malik and Abu Hanifa make it become udhiya by the intention: the argument is that the contract creates ownership and the designation removes it, the two unable to coincide, like one who buys to endow or to free. The newer line requires the speech: "this is an udhiya"; the older rests on the Prophet's garlanding and marking his camels without declaration; the first is sounder, the Prophet having perhaps slaughtered voluntarily or spoken without the reporter hearing. Should the animal become udhiya, ownership dies and replacement is barred by the older line; Abu Hanifa and Muhammad allow it. If the owner sells it, the sale is void; if the buyer took it and it perishes, the seller guarantees; if he slaughters it out of time, he owes the seller the loss of value; in time, it counts for the seller; the buyer's liability is debated along two lines reported by al-Tabari.
The Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is in one line hold no charity is required: eating everything counts, by Surah al-Hajj 37:
Neither their meat nor their blood reaches Allah; what reaches Him from you is piety.
Surah al-Hajj, 37
the aim of the slaughter after the shedding of the blood being piety, with no mention of eating or charity; if eating the greater part left the animal an udhiya, eating all of it does the same. The Shafi'is in another line hold eating and charity both obligatory: eating everything does not count, giving everything does not count, the two must be joined, by Surah al-Hajj 28 which mentions and orders them together; the Prophet slaughtered a hundred camels during his pilgrimage, ordered Ali to take a piece from each, had it cooked, ate the meat and drank the broth: eating from every camel proves its obligation.
In practice, hold to the common frame: a sound animal, free of any defect touching the eye, the ear, the walk or the flesh, of the required age, slaughtered by a Muslim, within the time that runs from the Eid prayer to the sunset of the third day, and whose meat is shared freely between eating, keeping and generosity, the butcher being paid aside. The delicate cases, an animal slaughtered by someone else, a lost animal, a vowed 'aqiqa, are settled by consulting a religious authority with the details given here.