a small one; for a male, there is a male; for a female, there is a female; for a healthy one, there is a healthy one, [and for a defective one, there is a defective one. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Malik said: For a small one, there is a large one, and for a defective one, there is a healthy one] (52); because Allah, the Exalted, said: "an offering, brought to the Ka'ba." A small or defective animal does not suffice as an offering (hady), and because it is an expiation related to the killing of an animal, it does not differ based on its being small or large, just as in the killing of a human. Our argument is the saying of Allah, the Exalted: "the penalty is an equivalent of what he killed of the livestock." The equivalent of a small one is a small one. Furthermore, that which is guaranteed by possession or violation differs in its guarantee based on smallness and greatness, like cattle. The "offering" in the verse is qualified (53) by the "equivalent," and the Companions have reached a consensus on the guarantee with that which is not fit (54) to be an offering, such as a young goat (jafrah), a young female goat ('anaq), or a young kid (jady). The expiation for a human is not a substitute for him, nor does it proceed according to the rules of guarantee, evidence being that it does not contain portions in its parts. If one pays a defective animal with a healthy one, it is better; if one pays it with a defective one similar to it, it is permissible. If the defect differs, such as if one pays for a lame one with a one-eyed one, or a one-eyed one with a lame one, it is not permissible because it is not its equivalent. If one pays for an animal one-eyed in one eye with an animal one-eyed in the other, or a lame one in one leg with one lame in another, it is permissible, for this is a slight difference, and the type of defect is the same; only the location differs. If one pays for a male with a female, it is permissible because its meat is better and more tender. If one pays for a female with a male, it is permissible according to one of the two opinions, because its meat is more abundant, so they are equal. The other opinion is that it is not permissible, because the excess it has over her is not of the same nature as her excess, so it resembles the paying for a defective animal of one type with a defective one of another type (55).

Section: If he kills a pregnant animal (makhid) (56), the judge said: He guarantees it with the value of its equivalent. This is