—in his view it only becomes binding by the actual act of slaughter, unless he had previously made it obligatory by a verbal declaration.

If a person dies on the Day of Sacrifice before performing his offering, the animal he had set aside for the udḥiyah is inherited like the rest of his estate—unlike the hady. Should he die after slaughtering it, his heirs do not inherit it; rather, they may eat from it and give some of it in charity exactly as he himself was entitled to do, but they are not to divide its meat as an inheritance.

If a disqualifying defect afflicts the sacrificial animal before it is slaughtered, the owner must replace it, again contrary to the ruling on the hady. Whoever discovers a flaw in his udḥiyah returns it and buys another of the same kind for the same price; he may not purchase one for less. There is no harm in a man’s selling his sacrificial animal and buying a better one for a higher price, provided he does not diminish anything of its value. This applies as long as he had not already made that animal obligatory upon himself.

If someone sets aside money for an udḥiyah and thereby obligates it, it is recommended that he not take any of that sum back into his own funds. If he set it aside without obligation and there is money left over, he may do with the surplus whatever he wishes.

Whoever buys a scrawny animal and it becomes fat before slaughter, it suffices for him. Conversely, if he buys a fat animal and a disqualifying defect occurs in it before it is slain—even after he has laid it down for slaughter—it does not suffice, and he must replace it if he can. Anything that happens to it after the slaughter is complete does not affect the validity of the offering.

If a person’s udḥiyah is lost and he replaces it, then later finds the original during or after the days of slaughter, he is not obliged to slaughter it. If it is lost and he does not replace it, then finds it during the days of slaughter, he must slaughter it; but if he finds it after those days, he is not required to do so, and the animal is simply his property to dispose of as he wishes.

There is no harm in a man offering a single sheep on behalf of himself and his household, and the same applies to a cow or a camel. Whether they number seven or more makes no difference in Mālik’s view, provided the animal belongs to him alone; he merely shares its reward with them. In his view, however, it is invalid for two or more people to pool together in a single udḥiyah or in a single hady.