very rarely can one find a pregnant animal whose characteristics, together with those of its unborn young, can be precisely specified. If you simply say, “pregnant,” without further qualification, then this is not an adequate description, for if you intend to describe both the animal and its unborn young, that is difficult to achieve; while if you leave it unrestricted, it involves uncertainty, since there is a difference between a large pregnant animal and a small pregnant animal.

It is understood from his statement, “a pregnant animal,” that a salam contract is valid for animals, because their characteristics can be precisely specified. For this reason, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, instructed Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As, may Allah be pleased with him, “to take, in exchange for the camels due as zakat, one camel for two, and two camels for three.” (1) This is the reverse of salam, but it indicates that animals may be sold by description.

Does “a pregnant animal” include a pregnant female human being? Yes, it does, because a human being is called an animal, though a rational animal. For an animal is anything possessing a spirit; however, when referring to a human being, this must be qualified by saying “rational.” Hence, if someone says to a human being, “You animal,” it is regarded as an insult for which he is subject to discretionary punishment, because a human being is not merely an animal in an unrestricted sense.

His statement, “every adulterated item”: a salam contract is not valid for it. This too applies to the preceding cases: adulterated silver and adulterated gold existed, but the extent of the adulteration was unknown. Nowadays, however, the degree of adulteration is known and can be determined