it is as though he had offered a cow; and whoever goes out in the third hour, it is as though he had offered a ram.” Thus, the ḥadīth must be understood as covering every act of devotion that involves offering an animal.

Mālik, however, restricted its scope to the hady animals alone, lest the Prophet’s practice appear to conflict with his own words, and he regarded this as the sounder course. A further cause of disagreement may lie in another question: does the “great sacrifice” with which Abraham ransomed his son remain a Sunnah down to our day, and is it in fact the very uḍḥiyah? This is, they say, the meaning of the Almighty’s statement,

“And We left for him a good name among later generations.” (Q 37:108)

Those who take this view conclude that rams are the superior species, whereas anyone who denies that it is a continuing Sunnah finds no proof that rams are preferable. Yet it is established that “the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—offered both kinds.” On that basis, the position of al-Shāfiʿī is the one to be adopted.

All scholars agree that the uḍḥiyah may be offered only with livestock, the sole exception being a report from al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ, who said: “It is permissible to offer a wild cow on behalf of seven people, and a gazelle on behalf of one.”

Issue Two

The scholars unanimously hold that the following animals are to be avoided for sacrifice: one whose lameness is obvious, one whose sickness is evident, and an emaciated animal that contains no marrow. Their proof is the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib:

“When the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—was asked what defects must be avoided in sacrificial animals, he gestured with his hand and said, ‘Four.’ Al-Barāʾ would move his hand and say, ‘My hand is shorter than that of the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him: the clearly lame animal, the one-eyed animal with obvious blindness, the obviously sick animal, and the emaciated animal that has no marrow.’”

They likewise agree that if any of these four defects is present only to a slight degree, the animal remains valid for sacrifice.

The jurists then differed on two points:

1. Animals afflicted with defects more severe than those expressly mentioned, such as total blindness or a broken leg.
2. Animals with defects equal in their effect of diminishing and marring the animal—those occurring in the ear, eye, tail, tooth, and the like—provided the defect is not minor.

Regarding the first point, the majority maintain that defects more serious than the ones named are even more certain to invalidate the sacrifice. The Ẓāhirīs, however, hold that such defects do not invalidate it and that one need avoid no more than the four defects explicitly mentioned.