two riyals, while the sheep is worth one hundred riyals, then in this case we compel the seller and say to him: Take this as the value of the head, and the entire sheep remains the property of the buyer. The same applies to the feet and the hide.

If he excludes the fat tail of an animal whose meat may be eaten—the fat tail being found on sheep—is this permissible or not?

The answer: By analogy with the head, it is permissible, because it is a distinct part known by direct observation, so the exclusion is valid.

If he excludes the tail of a goat, does it have any value? The answer: It has no value nowadays. In any case, if he excludes it, the exclusion is valid, but it has no value.

His statement, “from an animal whose meat may be eaten”: “whose meat may be eaten” is an adjective describing “animal.” Thus, if he excludes something from an animal whose meat may not be eaten—for example, if he says, “I sell you this donkey, except for its head”—the sale is not valid, because he derives no benefit from the head. The only benefit derived from the head is eating it, and eating it is prohibited; and whatever is prohibited has no value. Accordingly, the animal from which he excludes its head, hide, or limbs must be one whose meat may be eaten.

Case: Suppose the buyer purchases a sheep, with the seller excluding its head. When the buyer takes the sheep away, he finds that it is one-eyed. Being one-eyed is a defect that diminishes its value, so the buyer says: “I wish to rescind the sale because it is one-eyed.” The seller replies: “The defect is in the head, and the head belongs to me; therefore, you have no right to rescind the sale.”

We say: Rather, he does have the right to rescind it, because of the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “The believers, in their mutual love, mercy, and compassion, are like a single body: if one part of it suffers