and to him belong its offspring, its growth, and the right to retract it whenever he wishes, as long as he has not slaughtered it; for he intended charity with a portion of his wealth, so it is like someone who intends charity with a dirham. The second state is that he makes it mandatory with his tongue, saying: "This is a sacrificial animal," or he garlands it or marks it, intending thereby to offer it; thus it becomes a specific obligation. The obligation attaches to the animal itself rather than the liability of its owner, and it remains in the owner's hands like a trust (wadi'ah). He is obligated to preserve it and deliver it to its place. If it perishes without negligence on his part, or is stolen, or goes astray, he is not liable for anything, because it did not become mandatory in the liability; rather, the right attached to the animal itself, so it lapsed with its destruction, like a trust. Al-Daraqutni narrated with his chain of transmission from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) say: "Whoever offers a voluntary sacrificial animal, and it goes astray, he is not liable for a replacement unless he wishes; but if it was a vow, he must provide a replacement." In another narration, he said: "Whoever offers a voluntary sacrificial animal, and it becomes defective, then if he wishes [he may replace it, and if he wishes] he may eat it; but if it was a vow, he must replace it." As for if he destroys it, or it perishes through his negligence, he is liable for it; because he destroyed an obligation belonging to others, so he is held liable, just as with a trust. If he fears it will die, or he becomes unable to proceed or travel with companions, he slaughters it in its place, and leaves it between him and the poor, and it is not permissible for him or any of his companions to eat anything from it, even if they are poor. It is recommended for him to place the sandal of the garlanded sacrificial animal on its neck into its blood, then strike its flank with it, so as to identify it to the poor, so that they may know it is a sacrificial animal and not carrion, and thus they may take it. This was the view held by