and for trade and other purposes, whereas meat is generally intended for eating. Since their benefits and purposes differ, each is unrelated to the other. This is also due to the weakness of the hadith reported on the matter.

Some scholars hold that it is categorically impermissible to sell meat for a live animal, whether of the same genus or a different genus, because it is the sale of something living for something dead. They relate from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, that he “forbade the sale of the living for the dead” (1). However, this view is weak, because the hadith reported on this matter is weak, and the basic principle concerning sale is permissibility, as Allah the Exalted says: “Allah has permitted trade.”

Some scholars have drawn a distinction, saying: If the animal is intended for its meat, then it is not valid to sell meat for an animal of the same genus. But if the animal is intended for benefit through riding, leasing, ploughing, or the like, then there is nothing wrong with it. For when its meat is intended, the purposes coincide: what is sought from this animal is meat, and deeds are judged by intentions. But if other benefits are intended, then the purpose differs.

This is the soundest of the four views: if the animal is intended for its meat, then it is not permissible, because it is as though he has sold meat for meat without equality—that is, with disparity. But if the animal is intended for a benefit other than eating, there is nothing wrong with it. This view does not conflict with the hadith prohibiting the sale of meat for a live animal, because the hadith may be understood as referring to the case in which a person intends the animal for its meat.