had arisen for a butcher involving a bull. He referred the matter to the judicial official Ibn Makkī, who consulted the jurists. The jurist Ibn Rizq—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—ruled that its meat could lawfully be eaten and that the butcher could sell it provided he disclosed the defect. Ibn Hamdīn ruled that it could not lawfully be eaten and ordered that it be thrown into the riverbed. Ibn Makkī decided to follow Ibn Hamdīn’s opinion and ordered that it be thrown there. The officers took it away, but when the common people and the disadvantaged heard that the jurist Ibn Rizq had permitted its consumption, they banded together against the officers, seized it from them, divided it among themselves, and carried it off as plunder. They did so because of their high regard for the knowledge and learning of the jurist Ibn Rizq—may Allah have mercy on him. In my view, his ruling was correct, given the observable facts established through examination that I mentioned above. Success rests with Allah.

There is disagreement concerning a broken neck when the spinal cord has not been severed. Ibn al-Qāsim narrated from Mālik—may Allah Most High have mercy on them both—that this is not a fatal injury, whereas Ibn al-Mājishūn and Mutarrif narrated from Mālik that it is. There is also disagreement concerning jugular veins that have split without being severed. Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam said that this is not a fatal injury, while Ashhab and other companions of Mālik said that it is.

If, however, the injury has not caused lethal damage to a vital organ and the animal is expected to survive, there is no disagreement that it may be slaughtered and eaten, provided it is known to have been alive at the time of slaughter through the presence of signs of life. These are five: flowing blood, blinking of the eye, kicking of a hind leg, movement of the tail, and the passage of breath through its throat. These five signs come down to two: flowing blood and movement of the slaughtered animal, or something equivalent to movement, namely the passage of breath through its throat, which is known to occur only while life remains.

Section

If both signs are present in an animal whose bones have been broken, but whose vital organs have not sustained lethal damage from the fracture, and which is expected to survive at the time of slaughter, its meat may be eaten by agreement. If its blood flows but there is no movement or its equivalent, it may not be eaten. This is the apparent meaning of Mālik’s statement—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—in al-Muwatta’, and I know of no disagreement on this point.

If there is movement, or its equivalent in the passage of breath, but no flowing blood, the matter falls under the disagreement concerning an animal whose survival is no longer hoped for, although its injury has not caused lethal damage to a vital organ. For if its blood does not flow at slaughter, it is known that it