meat, not a sacrifice; and this is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: He hands it over to the poor and does not slaughter it. If he slaughters it, he distributes its meat and is liable for the diminution in value caused by the slaughter, because the slaughter [as a religious act] lapsed with the passage of its time. Our view is that the slaughter is one of the two primary purposes of the sacrifice, so it does not lapse with the passage of its time, just as the distribution of the meat does not. This is because if he had slaughtered it during the days [of sacrifice] and then the time passed before he distributed it, he would distribute it after that. It differs from standing [at Arafah] and throwing the pebbles [in Mina]. Furthermore, the sacrifice does not lapse by its [time] passing, unlike those [aforementioned] acts.

Section: If the sacrifice becomes obligatory by his making it obligatory, and it is lost or stolen without negligence on his part, there is no liability upon him, because it is a trust in his hand. If it returns to him, he shall slaughter it, whether it is during the time of slaughter or after it, according to what we have mentioned.

1764 - Issue; He said: (If he slaughters before that, it does not suffice him, and he is obligated to provide a replacement.)

This is because of the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever slaughters before he prays, let him repeat it with another in its place" (1). Also, because it is an obligatory act of devotion that he slaughtered before its time, so its replacement becomes binding upon him, like the hady (sacrificial animal for Hajj) if one slaughters it before its proper place. Its replacement must be similar to it or better, because slaughtering it before its proper time constitutes a waste of the animal. The wording of al-Khiraqi [and those of our companions who spoke generally] (2) is interpreted as referring to a sacrifice that is obligatory by vow or by designation. If it was not obligatory by either of these two, then it is a sheep for meat, and there is no replacement required of him unless he wishes; because he intended a voluntary act but corrupted it, so its replacement is not obligatory for him, just as if one went out with a voluntary charity and gave it to someone not deserving of it. The hadith is interpreted in one of two ways: either that it denotes recommendation, or that it is specific to the one upon whom it was obligatory, evidenced by what we have mentioned. As for the slaughtered sheep, it is a sheep for meat, as described by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (1), meaning he does with it whatever he wishes, like a sheep one slaughters for its meat and for no other reason. If this was obligatory, he would have been required to replace it and slaughter what stands in its place, so this one would no longer be considered obligatory, like an obligatory hady if it becomes injured before reaching its proper place. If it was voluntary, he has removed it from being an act of worship by his slaughtering it.