what it has lost in value, he gives that as charity. Abu Hanifah said: "All of it is to be sold, and a (18) sacrificial animal is to be purchased." He based this on the view that it does not suffice, but we have already clarified that it does suffice.

Section: If one makes a sacrificial animal mandatory, he may replace it with one that is better, and sell it in order to purchase a better one with its price. Ahmad stated this explicitly. This is the choice of the majority of the companions and the school of Abu Hanifah. Abu al-Khattab said: His ownership of it ceases, and he is not permitted to sell it or replace it. This is the opinion of Malik and al-Shafi'i; because it is a right attached to the animal itself and extends to its offspring, so its sale is prohibited, like the status of an Umm al-Walad (a concubine who has borne her master a child). Also, because he is not (19) permitted to replace it with its equivalent, it is not permitted to replace it with something better, like all other things whose sale is forbidden. The argument for the first view is that vows are treated according to their principles in obligatory acts, which is Zakat, in which substitution is permitted; this is the same. Furthermore, if his ownership were to cease, it would not return to him upon the animal's death, unlike all other properties when they cease. Their analogy is invalidated by the case of a Mudabbar (a slave granted freedom after his master's death), whose sale is permissible. It has been proven that the sale of a Mudabbar is permissible, as the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) sold a Mudabbar (20). As for replacing it with its equivalent or something lesser, that is not permitted due to the lack of benefit in doing so.

Section: If the sacrificial animal gives birth, its offspring is in the same status as the mother if it is possible to drive it [to the Haram]; otherwise, he carries it on her back and feeds it from her milk. If it is impossible to drive it or carry it, he treats it as he would treat the sacrificial animal if it becomes defective. There is no difference in this regard between what he initially designated and what he designated as a replacement for a duty upon his liability. Al-Qadi said regarding that which was designated as a replacement for a duty: It is possible that