attaches to another object. It becomes like a debt for which a guarantor provides a guarantee, or for which a pledge (rahn) is provided, because the right attaches to the guarantor and the pledge while remaining upon the liability of the debtor. Whenever it is impossible to fulfill it from the guarantor, or the pledge is destroyed, the right remains upon the liability as it was. We know of no disagreement regarding this. If he slaughters it, and then it is stolen or becomes disabled, he bears no responsibility. Ahmad said: If he performs the slaughtering and does not feed it [to the poor] until it is stolen, he bears no responsibility, for when he has slaughtered it, he has completed his obligation. Al-Thawri, Ibn al-Qasim (a companion of Malik), and the Ahl al-Ra'y (the Rationalists) held this view. Al-Shafi'i said: He must repeat it, because he did not deliver the right to its rightful recipient, thus it is similar to the case where he had not slaughtered it. Our argument is that he has performed the obligation upon him, so he is absolved of it, just as if he had distributed it. The evidence that he has performed the obligation is that nothing remains except the distribution, which is not obligatory, as evidenced by the fact that if he were to make it accessible to the poor, it would suffice him. For this reason, when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) slaughtered the sacrificial camels, he said: "Whoever wishes may take a piece." When this specified animal becomes disabled, or develops a defect that prevents it from being sufficient, its slaughter does not suffice him for what is in his liability, because he owes a sound sacrificial animal and it is not found; thus he owes a replacement for it, and this sacrificial animal returns to his possession. He may do with it as he wishes—consume it, sell it, gift it, give it in charity, or otherwise. This is the apparent view of al-Khiraqi. Ibn al-Mundhir related it from Ahmad, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the Ahl al-Ra'y. A similar view is reported from 'Ata'. Malik said: He may eat it and feed whomever he likes among the rich and the poor, but he may not sell anything from it. Our argument is what Sa'id related, saying: Sufyan narrated to us, from 'Abd al-Karim, from 'Ikrimah, from Ibn 'Abbas, who said: "If you offer a voluntary sacrificial animal and it becomes disabled, slaughter it, then dip the sandal in its blood and strike its flank with it, then if you eat it or order it to be eaten, you have made it known. If you offer an obligatory sacrificial animal and it becomes disabled, slaughter it, then eat it if you wish, gift it if you wish, sell it if you wish, and use its value to support another sacrificial animal." And because when it is permissible for him to eat it and feed the rich, it is permissible for him to sell it.