must slaughter her as an obligation, rather than simply kill her, because if he kills her, he derives no benefit from her. But if he slaughters her in the prescribed manner, she may be used. It is well known that whenever it is possible to preserve an animal’s monetary value, doing so is obligatory.

Question: If an animal develops a defect that cannot be cured and from which no benefit can be derived, should we say that he must keep it, compel him to spend on it, and thus waste this wealth for no benefit? Or should we say that, in this case, he may destroy it? For if it is permissible to destroy it for food—which is generally a nonessential matter—then destroying it in order to avert the harm of having to spend on it is even more warranted. If we keep it and continue spending on it, that is a waste of wealth. For example, if this she-camel were kept alive despite fractures in all four of her legs, could they be set? In most cases, they cannot.

Thus, in this case, he must slaughter her if his wealth would otherwise be wasted. Since she will be eaten, her monetary value will not be lost. But if no benefit can be derived from her because she is sick or emaciated, then he slaughters her and throws her away. Releasing animals to roam free when all hope of benefiting from them has been lost is permissible, as in the hadith of Jabir, when his camel became exhausted and he wished to set it free and leave it. (1) Thus, if it is supposed that a donkey breaks a leg—and they say that a donkey’s fracture cannot be set—then he may kill it, but by the easiest method that will put the donkey at ease. The easiest means, as Muhammad Rashid Rida, may Allah have mercy on him, says, is electric shock.