If someone were to ask: What is the response to the hadith cited as evidence—namely, the hadith of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him?

We reply: If the hadith is authentic, its prohibition is due to the possibility that shearing may harm the animal, especially if it is shorn during the winter days. Thus, the prohibition is not due to uncertainty, but rather due to harm.

As for the analogy that it is connected to the animal and is therefore like one of its parts, our response is twofold:

First, we do not concede that it is prohibited to sell a known and visible part, such as selling the head, the neck, or the hand from the upper arm. We do not concede that selling such a thing is unlawful, because it is visible and known, involving neither excessive uncertainty nor ignorance.

Second, the analogy is invalid, because hair or wool is regarded as detached. How, then, can it be treated as a bodily part? Remarkably, the jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, have said that touching a woman with desire invalidates ablution, whereas touching her hair does not invalidate ablution. They said: because it is regarded as detached!

The sounder view in this issue is that selling wool while it is on the animal’s back is permissible, provided that it is shorn immediately and that no harm comes to the animal. If the animal would be harmed, then it is prohibited—not because it is unknown, but because of the harm to the animal.

His statement, “and radishes and the like before they are uprooted”: radishes are well known. They may not be sold until they are uprooted from the ground and seen, because they are buried in the earth: they may be large, medium-sized, or small.