And in a wording narrated by Imam Ahmad (15): "And he shall leave them to the people, and neither he nor any of his companions shall eat from them." Sa'id said: Ismail ibn Ibrahim narrated to us, from Abu al-Tayyah, from Musa ibn Salamah, from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), that he sent eighteen camels with a man and said: "If any of them becomes exhausted on you, slaughter it, then dip its sandal in its blood, then strike its side with it, and do not eat, you nor any of your companions." (16) This is authentic and includes additional information and a specific meaning, so it must be given precedence over the general wording of what contradicts it. It is not correct to equate his companions with other people, because a person has compassion for his companions and likes to be generous to them, and he may often be generous to them from his own provisions. The driver and his companions were only forbidden from eating from it so that he would not be negligent in guarding it, causing it to become defective so that he and his companions could eat from it, thus he would be suspected of causing it to become defective for his own sake and that of his companions; therefore, they were forbidden from it for that reason. If he eats from it, or sells it, or feeds a wealthy person or his companions with it, he is liable for its equivalent in meat. If he destroys it, or it is lost due to his negligence, or he fears it will become defective but does not slaughter it until it dies, then he is liable for it in a way that delivers it to the poor of the Haram; because it is not impossible for him to deliver the compensation to them, unlike the case of the one that becomes naturally defective. If he feeds a poor person from it, or orders him to eat from it, there is no liability upon him because he has delivered it to those entitled to it, so it is similar to if he had fed a poor person after it reached its destination (17). If its slaughter is performed with a defect, it suffices. Abu Hanifah said: "It does not suffice, unless the defect occurs after it has been laid down for slaughter." Our evidence is that if it were to become defective, nothing would be required of him, so a defect is even more entitled [to be overlooked]; because defectiveness takes away the whole [animal], while a defect [merely] diminishes it, and because it is a defect that occurred after it became mandatory, so it is similar to if it occurred after it was laid down for slaughter. If it is damaged by the action of a human, he is liable for what it has lost in value, and he gives that as charity. Abu Hanifah said: "All of it is to be sold, and a [replacement] sacrificial animal is to be purchased." (18) He based this on the view that it does not suffice, but we have already clarified that it does suffice.