or if he were under an obligation to emancipate a slave as an expiation, so he purchased one, and then it became defective while in his possession, it does not fulfill his obligation. But if he said: "It is incumbent upon me before God to emancipate this specific slave," and it then becomes defective, it suffices for him.

Section: If one destroys an obligatory sacrificial animal, he is liable for its value because it is among those items that possess a defined value (mutaqawwamat). The value is assessed on the day he destroyed it. If sheep have become expensive such that its equivalent is worth more than its value [at the time of destruction], Abu al-Khattab said: He is bound to provide its equivalent, because it is the greater of the two matters, and because the right of God Almighty to have it slaughtered was attached to it, so he is obligated to provide its equivalent, just as if it had not become defective, unlike an outsider (al-ajnabi). This is also the school of al-Shafi'i. The apparent position of the Qadi is that he is only liable for the value on the day he destroyed it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa; because it is a destruction that necessitates the value, so no more than the value on the day of destruction is required, just as if an outsider had destroyed it, like other objects of liability (madmunat). If sheep decrease in price so that their value is more than their equivalent—for example, if its value at the time of destruction was ten, but the value of its equivalent became five—he is liable for ten in one view. If he wishes, he may buy with it one sacrificial animal worth ten, or if he wishes, he may buy two, or if he wishes, he may buy one sacrificial animal. If there is a surplus from the ten that is not enough to purchase a full sacrificial animal, he may buy with it a share in a camel (badana). If that is not possible, or if participation is not feasible, there are two views: first, he may buy meat and give it away as charity, because the slaughter and the distribution of meat are both intended, so if one of them is impossible, the other becomes mandatory. Second, he distributes the surplus as charity, because if he cannot attain the act of drawing near to God through the spilling of blood, the meat and its price are the same. If the destroyer is an outsider, he is liable for its value on the day he destroyed it, in one view, and he must pay it to its owner. If it exceeds the price of its equivalent, its ruling is the same as if the owner had destroyed it. If the value does not reach the price of a sacrificial animal, the ruling regarding it is according to what has already passed regarding the excess over the price of a sacrificial animal in the case of the person offering the sacrifice. If the sacrificial animal perishes in his possession without negligence, or is stolen, or gets lost, he is not liable for anything, because it is a trust (amanah) in his hand, so he is not liable unless he was negligent, just like a deposit (wadi'ah).

Section: If he purchases a sacrificial animal and does not designate it [as a sacrifice] until he learns of a defect in it, he may return it if he wishes, or if he wishes, he may take its compensation (arsh). Then, if its defect prevents its validity, he may not offer it as a sacrifice; otherwise, he may offer it as a sacrifice, and the compensation is his.