whose udder has dried up—that is, due to old age it no longer produces milk, so its udder is dry. Even if the udder remains its original size and has not shrunk, it is not valid. However, this view is also weak, because there is no evidence prohibiting its sacrifice. When there is no evidence for this, the basic principle is that it is valid. Thus, the preponderant view in this matter is that it is valid.

His statement, “the sick animal”: that is, it too is not valid. But this unrestricted wording is qualified to cases in which the sickness is evident. A sickness may be evident either through its effects or through its nature.

As for its effects, they are seen in signs of illness appearing on the animal: lethargy, becoming fatigued quickly, diminished appetite, and the like.

As for its nature, the illness may be one that is clearly recognizable, such as plague and the like. Even if the animal is active, it is not valid. For this reason, the Hanbali scholars said that mange is an illness. Although mange does not have an obvious effect on the animal, especially when it is slight, they said that it is an evident illness; moreover, it spoils the meat, so the animal is not valid.

The sick animal is invalid on the basis of both the textual evidence and sound reasoning. The textual evidence is the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “The sick animal whose illness is evident.”

The reason is that a person who eats the meat of a sick animal may be harmed by it.

As for an animal suffering from indigestion, this occurs when some sheep eat dates and become bloated—that is, their bellies swell and they do not pass gas. It cannot be known that it has escaped death unless it defecates. Therefore, we say: the illness of an animal suffering from indigestion is evident unless it defecates.