Some scholars have said: It is permissible, because deeds are judged by intentions. This man sold it intending to replace it with something better, so it is permissible, just as it would be if he directly exchanged it for something better.

However, it is preferable to close this door and not dispose of it through sale, because he may sell it in order to buy something better, then be unable to find one to buy, or greed may overcome him, or something similar may occur. Accordingly, nothing should be excepted other than direct exchange.

His statement, “and he may shear its wool,” is also one of the consequences of designation: he may not take anything from it—neither wool nor milk—if it has a young whose welfare would be harmed by taking its milk, because it has now passed out of his ownership.

If he says, “I want to shear its wool in order to benefit from it,” we say: This is not permissible, unless it is more beneficial for the animal; then there is no harm. How might it be more beneficial for it?

The answer is that this may be so if it has abundant wool that causes it discomfort, and shearing it would bring it relief; or if it has suffered a wound and its hair is shorn in order to expose the wound to the air so that it may dry and cool, or in order to treat it.

In summary, if shearing the wool is more beneficial, he may shear it. But if it involves neither benefit nor harm, then it is not permissible, because the author has restricted it to the case where it is more beneficial.

His statement, “and the like, if it is more beneficial for it,” means things similar to wool, such as hair and camel hair. Allah says: “And from their wool, fur, and hair, you derive furnishings and goods for use for a time.” [al-Nahl: 80] Hair belongs to cattle and goats, camel hair to camels, and wool to sheep.