—though it is disliked, for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “We were commanded to examine the eye and the ear carefully, and not to offer in sacrifice a muqābalah (an animal with a cut at the front of its ear), a mudābarah (one with a cut at the rear of its ear), a sharqāʾ (one with a split ear), or a kharqāʾ (one with a pierced ear).” (1) (2)

His statement, peace and blessings be upon him, “to examine the eye and the ear carefully,” means that they should be sound and free of defect; or it may mean that we should inspect them closely. The first meaning is more correct.

This is an exception to his earlier statement regarding an animal with a severed ear or horn: if the severance is less than half, it does not affect its validity.

His statement, “less than half,” implies that if it is exactly half, it is not valid.

If someone were to say: Is there not a contradiction in his words? For he first said, “an animal with a severed ear or horn,” whereas here he says, “an animal whose ear or horn has had less than half cut off.” We reply: There is no contradiction in his words, because in his earlier statement, an animal with a severed ear or horn means one from which half or more has been cut off—according to the author. Anything less than half is valid.

However, the established legal school holds that the loss of half is valid, and that what renders it invalid is the loss of more than half of the ear or more than half of the horn. Thus, if half is gone and the other half remains, two principles come into conflict. If we consider whether it may be described as having a severed ear or horn, we would say that such a description is inapplicable, because more than half of the