than half of the ear or horn has not been lost. But if we consider soundness, we would say that it is not sound, because for an animal to be considered sound, the greater part must be intact. However, we say that one of these two principles is supported by another principle: the basic ruling is that it is valid unless evidence establishes its invalidity. Thus, the correct view in this issue is contrary to what the author held.

It has now become clear that the author, may Allah have mercy on him, differed from the established legal school in two issues:

The first is the animal whose tail has been cut off. According to the legal school, it is valid, whereas according to the author’s view, it is not valid.

The second is an animal with half of its ear or horn severed. According to the legal school, it is valid, whereas according to the author’s statement, it is not valid.

In any case, defects should be divided into three categories:

The first category consists of those which the sunnah indicates render an animal invalid. They are four: an animal whose one-eyedness is plainly evident; one whose illness is plainly evident; one whose lameness is plainly evident; and an emaciated animal with no marrow in its bones. These are explicitly stated to be invalid, and anything similar to them, or worse than them, is analogically included. What is similar is included by analogy of equivalence, while what is worse is included by a fortiori analogy.

The second category consists of defects concerning which a prohibition has been reported, without an explicit statement that they render the animal invalid: a defect in its ear or horn, such as a perforation, a lengthwise or crosswise split, or a slight cut of less than half. These are prohibited in the hadith of Ali ibn Abi Talib