and that nothing less than this suffices.

Another report from him (Mālik) stipulates that all four passages must be cut, while a third limits the requirement to the two jugular veins alone.

Within the Mālikī school there is no disagreement that, whenever the jugular veins are to be severed, both of them must be fully cut. As for the trachea, among those who deem its severing obligatory, some require it to be cut entirely, whereas others consider the majority of it sufficient.

Abū Ḥanīfah held that lawful slaughter requires the cutting of any three—not specifically determined—of the four passages: either the trachea together with the two jugulars; or the esophagus, the trachea, and one jugular; or the esophagus with the two jugulars.

Al-Shāfiʿī maintained that only the esophagus and the trachea must be cut.

Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ruled that what is obligatory is to sever most of each of the four passages.

The reason for their divergence is that no explicit transmitted condition exists on the matter; rather, two reports have reached us. One requires nothing beyond the gushing of blood, while the other calls for severing the jugulars in addition to the gushing of blood.

In the ḥadīth of Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “Whatever causes the blood to flow and over which the Name of Allah has been pronounced—eat of it.” This narration is agreed upon as authentic.

Another report, from Abū Umāmah, relates that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said, “Whatever severs the jugulars, then eat of it, so long as it is not by crushing with a fang or stabbing with a claw.”

The first ḥadīth, on its face, requires only that some of the jugulars be cut, since that is enough to make the blood flow, whereas the second calls for cutting them all.

Yet, Allah knows best, both ḥadīths concur on severing the jugular veins—whether both, the greater part of each, or the greater part of one. The two can be reconciled by understanding the definite article in his—upon him be peace—words “whatever severs the jugulars” as signifying “some” rather than “all,” for in Arabic the definite article can denote a part of the whole.

Those who stipulate cutting the trachea and esophagus have no textual proof, and even weaker is the position of those who require the esophagus and trachea while exempting the jugulars. Hence, some scholars concluded that what is obligatory is only what the Ummah agrees to be permissible, for since slaughter is a condition for lawfulness and no explicit text fixes the minimum, the duty must lie in what is unanimously accepted—unless evidence establishes an admissible exception, which is tenuous, because what is unanimously considered sufficient is not necessarily a condition for validity.

The third issue concerns the point of incision: if the laryngeal knob (jawzah) is not cut through its middle and protrudes toward the body, opinions within the Mālikī school differ. Mālik and Ibn al-Qāsim said that the animal may not be eaten, whereas Ashhab, Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, and Ibn Wahb said that it may.

The basis of the disagreement is whether severing the trachea is a condition for valid slaughter. Those who say it is a condition insist that the knob must be cut, for if the incision is made above it, the trachea remains intact. Those who deny it is a condition consider the slaughter valid even if the cut is made above the knob.