the ear is marked. This is recorded by Abu Dawud and al-Nasa'i. The Qadi said: The kharqa' is one whose ear has been perforated. This is a prohibition for the sake of dislike (tanzih), and the sacrifice is valid with it; we know of no disagreement regarding this. This is because requiring safety from all these [defects] would be burdensome, as one can hardly find an animal free from all of this.

1754 - Issue: He said: "And if he designated a sound animal for sacrifice, then it developed a defect while in his possession, he shall slaughter it, and it will count as a sacrifice."

The summary of this is that if he designates a correct and sound animal, free from defects, for sacrifice, and then a defect occurs in it that would prevent its validity, he still slaughters it, and it fulfills the requirement. This is narrated from 'Ata', al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, al-Zuhri, al-Thawri, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. The scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: It is not valid for him, because for them, the sacrifice is obligatory, so he is not absolved of it except by spilling its blood while it is sound, just as if he had obligated it as a debt and then specified it, only for it to become defective. Our position is based on what Abu Sa'id narrated, saying: "We bought a ram to sacrifice, but a wolf bit its rump, so we asked the Prophet (peace be upon him), and he commanded us to sacrifice it." Recorded by Ibn Majah. Also, it is a defect that occurred in an obligatory sacrifice, so it does not prevent validity, just as if a defect occurred due to the process of slaughtering. We do not agree that it is an obligation in the dhimma (as a debt); rather, the obligation is attached to its specific self. As for if it became defective through his own action, he is liable for its replacement. This is also the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: If he was performing the slaughter and the knife caused it to lose its eye, it is valid by way of istihsan (juridical preference). Our position is that this is a defect he caused to it before its slaughter, so it is not valid, just as if it were before the process of slaughtering.

Section: If he vows a sacrifice in his dhimma (as a debt) and then specifies it to a certain ewe, it becomes specific. If that ewe becomes defective before he slaughters it, it is not valid, because his obligation is not fulfilled except by slaughtering a sound ewe, just as if he vowed the manumission of a slave or