Issue: an animal with one of its legs severed is invalid all the more so. Likewise, an incapacitated animal that cannot walk at all is invalid. However, the same may be said here as was said regarding the blind animal: those who hold that a blind animal is valid also hold that an incapacitated animal is valid, because its feed can be brought to it. But this is a weak view and contrary to sound analogy, for the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, indicates the more serious case by mentioning the lesser one. Thus, if a lame animal is invalid when its lameness is clearly apparent, then an animal with one of its forelegs or hind legs severed, or one that is incapacitated and cannot walk at all, is invalid all the more so. As for the validity of a sacrifice with a slight limp, this is because hardly any animal is generally free of it, so it has been overlooked.

His statement, “the hathma’”: this is an animal whose incisors have fallen out from their roots. If they have broken while their roots remain, it is valid. This is because, when its incisors are lost from their roots, its appearance is disfigured in one respect, and it is unable to strip leaves from trees, since it has no incisors. It can therefore scarcely obtain its proper share of grazing. Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “The hathma’ is one that has lost some of its teeth,” without restricting this to the incisors. The author’s view concerning the hathma’ is weak.

The correct view is that it is valid, although the more complete the animal is, the better. The reason for its validity is that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was asked what should be avoided among sacrificial animals, and he said: “Four,” gesturing with his hand (1). The hathma’ is neither one of these four nor comparable to any of them.

His statement, “the jadda’”: this too is not valid. The jadda’ is the animal whose