the hadith. Al-Hasan said: He says: In the name of Allah, and Allah is Greatest; this is from You and for You; accept it from so-and-so. The scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y) disliked this, and we have already mentioned it in the preceding section.

Section: If he designates an animal for sacrifice and someone else slaughters it without his permission, it suffices for its owner, and there is no liability upon the one who slaughtered it. Abu Hanifa holds this view. Malik said: It is [regarded as] meat for consumption; its owner is entitled to its compensation (arsh), and he [the slaughterer] owes its replacement. This is because slaughtering is an act of worship, so when it is performed by someone other than the owner without his permission, it does not fulfill the purpose, like Zakat. Al-Shafi'i said: It suffices for its owner, but he [the owner] has a claim against the one who slaughtered it for the difference in its value when sound versus slaughtered; because slaughtering is one of the two intended purposes of the hady (sacrificial offering), so when a person performs it without the owner's permission, he is liable, like the distribution of meat. Our evidence against Malik is that it is an act that does not require intention, so if someone other than the owner performs it, it suffices for him, like washing his garment of impurities. Our evidence against al-Shafi'i is that it is a sacrifice that sufficed for its owner and fulfilled its purpose, so the one who slaughtered it is not liable, just as if it were done with permission. Furthermore, it is the shedding of blood whose shedding has been determined for the right of Allah the Exalted, so the one who shed it is not liable, like the killer of an apostate without the permission of the Imam. Additionally, if the compensation (arsh) were to be mandatory, it would only be for the difference between the animal being fit for slaughter during these days—specifically designated for this—and [between it being] slaughtered; yet there is no value for this life, and there is no disparity between the two values, so the existence and obligation of such compensation are impossible. Furthermore, if the compensation were mandatory, it would have to go to either the owner or the poor. It cannot be for the poor, as they only deserve it once slaughtered; if he gave it to them while alive, it would not be valid. Nor can it be for him [the owner], because it is not permissible for him to take a substitute for any part of it, just as he could not take a limb from its limbs. Moreover, they agreed with us that the compensation is not given to him, making it impossible to mandate it due to the absence of a recipient.

Section: If one makes a vow (nadhr) for a sacrifice to be fulfilled from his own liability, then slaughters it, it is permissible for him to eat from it. The Qadi said: Among our companions, there are those who forbade eating from it, and this is the apparent view of Ahmad, which he based on the vowed hady. Our position is that a vow is interpreted according to what is customary, and the custom regarding a legitimate sacrifice is to slaughter it and eat from it. A vow does not alter the nature of the vowed object except by making it obligatory. It is distinct from the hady that is obligatory by the origin of the Law (asl al-shar'), from which eating is not permitted; the vowed sacrifice is modeled after it, unlike the [ordinary] sacrifice.