The solution, if we wish to exclude one, is to specify it. Thus, I say: “Except for the slave named Muhammad,” or “the one named Abdullah,” or the like. In this way, the problem is removed.

If he says, “I sell you these slaves except for this one,” while pointing to him, the sale is valid, because he has been specified by the gesture.

His statement: “If he excludes the head, hide, and limbs of an animal whose meat may be eaten, the sale is valid.” “Its head” is the direct object of “excludes.” Therefore, had the author—may Allah have mercy on him—said, “If he excludes the head of an animal whose meat may be eaten,” it would have been clearer and better phrased.

Thus, his statement, “If he excludes the head, hide, and limbs of an animal whose meat may be eaten, the sale is valid,” means that this exclusion is valid because it is known. The head is before us, as though it were a heap of meat; and the limbs—that is, the feet—and the hide are likewise known. Although they may sometimes differ in tenderness and softness, or in thickness and thinness, this is a slight and excusable variation.

Thus, if he says, “I sell you this sheep except for its head,” the sale is valid. The difficulty arises, however, if the seller demands the head and the buyer refuses to slaughter the sheep. What should be done?

We say: If slaughtering it was stipulated, he is compelled to do so. If slaughtering it was not stipulated, it remains his property. If the buyer wishes to sell it, he sells the sheep excluding its head, because the head does not belong to him.

In this case, it might be said: if he refuses to slaughter it, leaving them as co-owners causes harm, and the dispute will continue indefinitely. In that case, we appraise it and compel the seller to accept the appraisal. We then determine how much the head would be worth if sold separately; if it is worth