Abū Ḥanīfah said: “Each one of these categories contains many distinct species, and unequal exchange is permissible except when the two portions come from the very same species.”
Al-Shāfiʿī has two views: one coincides with that of Abū Ḥanīfah, while the other regards all of them as a single kind. Thus Abū Ḥanīfah allows mutton to be exchanged for beef with disparity, whereas Mālik does not. Al-Shāfiʿī, for his part, does not permit poultry meat to be traded for mutton unequally, while Mālik allows it.
Al-Shāfiʿī’s main proof is the Prophet’s statement—peace and blessings be upon him—“Food is to be exchanged for food, like for like,” and his reasoning that once life has departed, the distinguishing characteristics that set one animal apart from another disappear, so that the single designation “meat” applies equally to all of them.
The Mālikīs argue that these are different genera; therefore their meat must be treated as different kinds.
The Ḥanafīs focus on the variation found within a single genus and maintain that the differences among the species of a given animal—such as among birds—are on a par with the differences between dates, wheat, and barley.
In sum, every school claims that the measure of divergence found in the items specifically mentioned in the texts is matched by the divergence it observes among kinds of meat. From the standpoint of underlying rationale, the Ḥanafīs are stronger, for the prohibition of disparity applies only when the benefit is identical.
An additional issue: the jurists also disagreed about selling a live animal in exchange for a carcass, and three positions emerged.
- Absolute prohibition; this is the view of al-Shāfiʿī and al-Layth.
- Permissible when the two items belong to different genera in which disparity is otherwise allowed, but impermissible when they are of the same kind—i.e., items subject to ribā—because of the ignorance entailed by disparity. This applies to animals intended for consumption and is the position of Mālik. Accordingly, he does not allow a slaughtered sheep to be exchanged for a live sheep that is to be eaten. Indeed, he even forbids trading a live animal for another live animal if the purpose of one of them is consumption, classifying the transaction under ribā and muzābanah.
- Unrestricted permissibility, the view adopted by Abū Ḥanīfah.
The root of the disagreement is the collision between general legal principles in this chapter and the mursal report of Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab. Mālik narrated—through Zayd ibn Aslam, from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab—that “The Messenger of God—peace and blessings be upon him—forbade selling a live animal for meat.” Whoever did not perceive any conflict between this ḥadīth and a foundational principle requiring prohibition accepted the report. Whoever judged that it conflicts with such principles had two options: either give precedence to the ḥadīth and treat it as an independent proof, or set it aside because of its clash with the foundations. Al-Shāfiʿī prioritized the ḥadīth; Abū Ḥanīfah prioritized the principles; and Mālik referred the matter back to his own principles of sale, treating the transaction as a form of ribā—that is, the sale of a thing