the sheep, by its being in his possession, then there is nothing [upon the owner of] the gemstone; because the negligence is on the part of the owner of the sheep, so the harm is upon him. If it inserted its head into a flask and it cannot be removed except by slaughtering it, and the harm in its slaughter is less, it is slaughtered. If the harm in breaking the flask is less, the flask is broken. If the negligence was on the part of the owner of the sheep, the liability is upon him, and if the negligence was on the part of the owner of the flask, such as placing it on the road, the liability is upon him. If there was no negligence from either of them, the liability is upon the owner of the sheep if the flask is broken, because it was broken to salvage his sheep; and if the sheep is slaughtered, the liability is upon the owner of the flask, because it was to salvage his flask. If the one upon whom the liability falls says: "I will destroy my own property and will not pay anything to the other," he may do so, because the destruction of the other person's property was only for his right, and the safety and salvaging of his own property. So, if he is content with its destruction, it is not permissible to destroy another's property. But if he says: "I will not destroy my property, and I will not pay anything," we shall not permit him to destroy his companion's property. However, the owner of the flask shall not be compelled to do anything, because the flask has no sanctity, so its owner is not compelled to salvage it. As for the owner of the sheep, it is not permissible for him to abandon it, because of the torture it causes the animal. Therefore, he is told: either slaughter the sheep to relieve it of the torture, or pay for the flask to its owner—if breaking it is less harmful—and save the animal; because that is a necessity for keeping it alive or saving it from torture, so it is incumbent upon him, just like feeding it. If the animal is not edible, it is possible that its ruling is the same as the edible one in what we have mentioned. It is also possible that the flask is broken, which is the position of our companions, because there is no benefit in its slaughter, nor is it sanctioned, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the slaughter of animals for other than food. It is also possible that it is treated like the edible one in that whenever its killing is less harmful, and the offense was committed by its owner, it is killed; because its sanctity is in opposition to the sanctity of the human whose property he is destroying, and the prohibition against slaughtering it is in opposition to the prohibition against the squandering of wealth, and in breaking the flask with its high value, there is a squandering of wealth. And Allah knows best.