“…then slaughter a jadhaʿah from the sheep,” a report recorded by Muslim.

The general wording, however, is found in the ḥadīth of Abū Burdah ibn Niyār, in which the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said:

“After you, no jadhaʿah will suffice for anyone.”

Whoever prefers this general text to the particular one—such was the view of Abū Muḥammad Ibn Ḥazm in this question—does so because he claimed that Abū az-Zubayr is counted by the ḥadīth specialists as a mudallis. A mudallis, in their technical usage, is a narrator who employs the formula “from (ʿan)” yet treats it as though the isnād were fully connected, showing some laxity in that regard. The ḥadīth of Abū Burdah, he argues, is above reproach.

By contrast, those who uphold the well-known principle, adopted by the majority of the uṣūl scholars, that the specific qualifies the general, exempt from that general rule the jadhaʿ of sheep expressly mentioned in the text—and this is the stronger position. Abū Bakr Ibn Ṣaffūr authenticated this ḥadīth and, to the best of my recollection, declared Ibn Ḥazm mistaken in what he attributed to Abū az-Zubayr in a statement composed to refute him.

The fourth issue concerns the number of sacrificial animals that may discharge the obligation for those who offer them. On this point the jurists differed.

Mālik held that a man may slaughter a ram, a cow, or a camel as an udḥiyah on behalf of himself and the members of his household whose maintenance the Law makes incumbent upon him; he applied the same ruling to the hady of pilgrimage.

Al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, and a number of scholars permitted a man to slaughter a camel on behalf of seven persons, and likewise a cow, whether as an udḥiyah or a hady. They all agreed that a ram suffices only for one person, except for the report transmitted by Mālik that it is acceptable for a man to slaughter a ram on behalf of himself and his household—not as a partnership, but provided he purchased it on his own.

This is supported by the report of ʿĀ’ishah—may Allah be pleased with her—who said:

“We were in Minā when some beef was brought to us. We asked, ‘What is this?’ They replied, ‘The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—has offered it in sacrifice on behalf of his wives.’”

Abu Ḥanīfah and ath-Thawrī dissented, regarding such a practice as disliked yet not invalid.

The root of their disagreement is the tension between the foundational principle and the analogy based on the report concerning the hady.

The foundational principle is that one animal suffices for one person; accordingly, they unanimously forbade partnership in a sheep. We state that the principle is “one for one” because the command to offer an udḥiyah admits of no division: a person who merely owns a share in a sacrifice is not, in the legal sense, called “one who offers a sacrifice” unless a scriptural proof establishes otherwise.

The report on which the analogy opposing this principle is built is Jābir’s narration:

“We slaughtered with the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—during the Year of al-Ḥudaybiyah a camel on behalf of seven persons,”

and in another version