The point at issue among them is this: Is the wording that has come down a specific expression meant to remain specific, or a specific expression intended to convey a general rule?
Whoever holds that it was meant to be strictly specific—and that, for this very reason, a number was stated—maintains that only those four defects bar the sacrifice from being valid.
But whoever regards it as a specific wording intended to carry a general meaning—one of the formulations in which mention of the lesser draws attention to the greater—says that anything more serious than the four defects explicitly named is even more certain to invalidate the offering.
As for the second matter—namely, defects found in other parts of the body that diminish the animal in the same way as the four expressly mentioned defects—the jurists fell into three opinions:
- Such defects invalidate the sacrifice just as the stated defects do. This is the well-known view of Mālik in the authoritative Mālikī sources.
- They do not invalidate the sacrifice, although it is recommended to avoid them. This was held by Ibn al-Qaṣṣār, Ibn al-Jallāb, and a group of Mālikī scholars from Baghdad.
- They neither invalidate the sacrifice nor is there any recommendation to avoid them. This is the position of the Ẓāhirīs.
Their disagreement rests on two considerations:
• their divergent understanding of the purport of the aforementioned ḥadīth; and
• the existence of apparently conflicting reports on this subject.
Regarding the ḥadīth: whoever sees it as a specific statement intended to remain specific says that nothing besides those four defects—whether equal to them in severity or more serious—invalidates the sacrifice.
Those who see it as a specific wording meant to be understood generally—the jurists—divide further. If one understands it as a case where the lesser is mentioned solely to alert one to what is greater, and not to something equal, he says: whatever is more severe than the four is appended to them, whereas what is merely equal is linked to them only as a matter of recommendation. But if one considers the ḥadīth to be alerting to both what is more severe and what is equal, he holds that defects resembling those explicitly named likewise invalidate the sacrifice, just as do defects that are greater.
This, then, is one source of disagreement: the wording is ambiguous between a particular and a general meaning, and, for those who take it as general, the question remains—does it embrace only what is more serious, or both the more serious and what is equal to it? The latter is the prevalent interpretation within the Mālikī school.
The second source of disagreement is that two sound yet apparently contradictory ḥadīths exist in this matter. Al-Nasāʾī relates on the authority of Abū Burdah that he said:
“O Messenger of Allah, I dislike any deficiency that may be in the horn or the ear.” The Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—replied, “Whatever you dislike, leave it, but do not make it unlawful for others.”
ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib reported: “The Messenger of Allah …” (and the report continues).