However, the correct view is that if what is excluded is small in proportion to the rest of the animal, the sale is valid. For if one pound of meat is excluded from an animal weighing one hundred pounds, there is neither harm nor uncertainty involved.

But if he says, “I sell you this sheep except for thirty pounds of its meat,” and the meat may amount to thirty pounds or may be less, then the exclusion is invalid, because it may be impossible to take delivery of it. If, however, it can be taken possession of—such as one pound of meat, a piece of the thigh, or a piece of the upper foreleg—then there is nothing wrong with it. Thus, we say: if he excludes a specified item that can be identified and obtained, there is no objection to it.

Likewise, if he excludes the liver, saying, “I sell you this sheep except for its liver,” the relied-upon position in the school is that this is invalid. The correct view, however, is that it is valid, because this exclusion is a retention.

If someone says, “The liver may be large or small,” we reply: Yes, that is possible; but this is a retention, and it is a known, distinct, separable part.

His statement: “It is valid to sell that whose edible portion is inside it, such as pomegranates and watermelons.” The same applies to oranges, fruit, and eggs. It is valid to sell that whose edible portion is inside it, because this is customary practice and people engage in it without objection. Moreover, opening it would spoil it, and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade wasting and spoiling wealth (1).