Bint Labun (a two-year-old she-camel) was obligatory upon him, and he gave a Hiqqah (a three-year-old she-camel) instead in Zakat. As for selling it, the apparent meaning of the statement of al-Khiraqi is that it is not permissible. Al-Qadi said: It is permissible for him to sell it and buy something better than it. This is the opinion of Ata, Mujahid, and Abu Hanifah, based on what we have mentioned regarding the hadith of the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) Budnah (sacrificial camels) and his including Ali in them, and because his ownership of it has not ceased, evidenced by the permissibility of exchanging it. Furthermore, since it is an entity that may be exchanged, it is permissible to sell it, just as it was before he made it an obligation. Our evidence is that he has dedicated it to Allah the Exalted, so it is not permissible to sell it, like the Waqf. The exchange of it for [an animal] of the same genus is permitted only because the right [attached] to its genus has not ceased, but rather it has shifted to something better than it, so it is effectively, in meaning, the addition of an increase to it. It is permissible to exchange a Mushaf (copy of the Quran), yet it is not permissible to sell it. As for the hadith of the Budnah, the apparent meaning is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not sell them, but rather he allowed Ali to share in their reward and merit. It is also possible that this was before he had obligated them. The statement of al-Khiraqi: "with something better than it," indicates that it is not permissible to replace it with something inferior, and there is no disagreement regarding this because it would be a loss of a part of it, so it is not permissible, just like destroying it. [It also implies] that it is not permissible to replace it with its equal, due to the lack of benefit in doing so. Al-Qadi said: There are two possibilities regarding exchanging it for its equal; one of them is its permissibility, because it does not diminish anything of what was made obligatory upon him. Our evidence is that he is changing what he obligated without any benefit, so it is not permissible, just as in the case of exchanging it for something inferior to it.

1763 - Issue: He said: "And when the amount of time required for the Eid prayer and its sermon has passed from the day of Adha, then sacrificing becomes permissible until the end of the two days of Tashriq, during the daytime, and it is not permissible at night."

The discussion regarding the time of sacrifice covers three aspects: its beginning, its end, and the universality or specificity of its time. As for its beginning, the apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's statement is that once enough time has passed from the day of Eid for the prayer to be performed, and [allowing for] the duration of the prayer and the two sermons in their entirety at the fastest possible rate, then the time for sacrifice has entered. The actual prayer is not a condition, and there is no difference in this regard between those in the city and others. This is the school of al-Shafi'i and Ibn al-Mundhir. The apparent meaning of Ahmad's statement is that one of the conditions for the permissibility of sacrifice for those in the city is the Imam's prayer and sermon. Something similar has been narrated from al-Hasan, al-Awza'i, Malik, Abu Hanifah, and Ishaq, because it was narrated that Jundab ibn Abdullah al-Bajali said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever slaughters before he prays, let him repeat it in its place."