Nasai

(1) "One thousand and a few hundred": According to the clarification in other narrations, their number was 1400; some individuals have also mentioned 1500. The first view is more reliable.

(2) "Placed collars": A collar (qaladah) was put on those animals that were sent to be slaughtered in the Haram, so that it would serve as a sign and no one would disrespect them or commit excess against them. The collar was a simple "necklace." A piece of shoe, bark of a tree, or any such simple thing would be threaded into a rope and placed around the animal's neck. It was not a mark of pride; therefore, this simplicity should be maintained.

(3) "Performed ish‘ar": This too was a sign for sacrificial camels. It was not done for animals other than camels. Ish‘ar is that a slight wound is made with a spear or lance on the right side of the camel's hump, and the blood that comes out is smeared there. From this, it would be known that this is a sacrificial camel. If it got lost, others would themselves return it to the pilgrims. No thief, etc., would steal it, and if, by chance, it had to be slaughtered on the way, only the poor would eat it, etc. This could also be accomplished with a collar, but since the collar could come off the neck, could break, etc., therefore, a mark was made that could not be removed.

(4) Ish‘ar is Sunnah. The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum), and the great Followers (Tabi‘in) continued to perform it without hesitation. Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) was the first person who called ish‘ar an innovation (bid‘ah). According to him, it is mutilation (muthlah) and causes unnecessary pain to the animal, therefore it should not be done. However, it is surprising that neither the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was aware of this, nor the Rightly Guided Caliphs, nor the other Companions and great Followers, even though these are self-evident matters. One reason attributed to the Imam is that, during the time of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), the disbelievers used to plunder the animals, and unless they were marked with ish‘ar, they would not consider them sacrificial animals and would not refrain from plundering them, so the Prophet was compelled to do so. This reasoning can only apply to the incident of ‘Umrah al-Hudaybiyyah. In the Farewell Pilgrimage (Hajjat al-Wada‘), the entire region had come under Islamic rule, and later, during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (radi Allahu anhum), the government had expanded beyond Arabia to vast non-Arab lands. At that time, out of fear of whom would ish‘ar be performed? In any case, the statement of the Imam is not correct. For this reason, even his distinguished students did not agree with him on this issue.

(5) Since ish‘ar is performed on the hump, and this is a fatty area, the wound is not felt by the camel. It heals quickly. Not much blood flows. For a large animal like a camel, this wound is negligible.

Hadith Commentary:
This hadith mentions the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and this is the point of correspondence between the hadith and the chapter.

Hadith Commentary:
1.
Hady refers to the sacrificial animals. Garlands are placed around the necks of goats so that people may know these are sacrificial animals and do not interfere with them, and the camel is wounded with a spear on the right side of its hump so that it becomes bloodstained. The purpose of this is also only to inform people.

2.
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) announced the intention to perform ‘umrah before departing for Hudaybiyyah. Countless noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum), who longed to see the Ka‘bah, prepared for ‘umrah. At the place of Dhu’l-Hulayfah, they donned the ihram and, after traveling for eight days, reached near Makkah al-Mukarramah. Near ‘Usfan, it became known to you that the Quraysh were determined to fight you and prevent you from reaching the House of Allah. You changed the route. When you reached Thaniyyat al-Murad, your she-camel sat down. People said: “Your she-camel has become stubborn.” You replied: “Qaswa’ has not become stubborn, nor is this her habit; rather, she has been stopped by the One who stopped the elephant.” Then you said: “By the One in Whose hand is my soul! Whatever matter these people demand from me in which the sanctities of Allah are honored, I will certainly accept it.” After this, the she-camel sprang up and stood. After that, you encamped at a spring in the area of Hudaybiyyah. This hadith has been mentioned in multiple places. (Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Shurut, Hadith: 2731, 2732)

Hadith Commentary:
The meaning of *ish‘ar* is to inflict a wound with a spear on the right hump of the sacrificial camel; thus, this animal would become marked as designated for sacrifice at the House of Allah, and no thief or bandit would dare lay a hand on it.
Even now, this *ish‘ar* is a Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
Some people have declared it disliked (makruh), which is a grave error and a disrespect to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
Imam Ibn Hazm (rahimahullah) said that, except for Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah), it is not reported from anyone else that it is disliked. Al-Tahawi said that Imam Abu Hanifah did not declare the original *ish‘ar* to be disliked, but rather considered it disliked when done excessively, to the extent that there is fear of the camel’s death. And regarding Imam Abu Hanifah, who is a leader of the Muslims, this is what we presume.
How could he declare the original *ish‘ar* to be disliked, when its being Sunnah is established by authentic ahadith?
(Wahidi)
*Qiladah* refers to a necklace made of sandals that would be placed around the neck of the sacrificial animal, thereby marking it as designated for sacrifice at the House of Allah. The *qiladah* applies to camels, goats, and cows alike. Regarding *ish‘ar*, the esteemed scholar Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) states:
> “And in it is the legislation of *ish‘ar*, which is to scrape the skin of the camel until blood flows, then to leave it as such, so that it becomes a sign of it being a sacrificial animal. The majority of the early and later scholars have affirmed its legislation. Al-Tahawi mentioned in ‘Ikhtilaf al-‘Ulama’ that its being disliked is reported from Abu Hanifah, while others have considered it recommended due to following (the Sunnah), even his two companions Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said it is good. Malik said that *ish‘ar* is specific to animals with humps. Al-Tahawi said that it is established from Aishah (radi Allahu anha) and Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhuma) that there is a choice in performing *ish‘ar* or leaving it, which indicates that it is not from the rites of Hajj, but it is not disliked, since its practice is established from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam),”
(Fath al-Bari)
That is, from this hadith, the legitimacy of *ish‘ar* is established: that the skin of the sacrificial animal is slightly wounded so that blood flows, and this is a sign of it being a sacrificial animal. The majority of both the early and later scholars have affirmed its legitimacy. Imam al-Tahawi, mentioning the scholarly disagreement on this, said that Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) considered it disliked, while others considered it recommended, even his two distinguished students, Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad (rahimahullah), considered it preferable.
Imam Malik (rahimahullah) said that *ish‘ar* is specific to those animals that have humps.
Al-Tahawi said that it is established from Aishah (radi Allahu anha) and Abdullah ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhuma) that there is a choice: one may perform *ish‘ar* or leave it. This is evidence that *ish‘ar* is not one of the rites of Hajj, but it is not disliked, because its practice is established from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
Many of the early scholars who objected to attributing general dislike to Imam Abu Hanifah have had their objections answered by Imam al-Tahawi, among them being that Imam Abu Hanifah did not reject *ish‘ar* absolutely, but considered it disliked when done with such excess that the animal becomes weak and is near death.
Those who have likened *ish‘ar* to mutilation (*muthlah*) are also mistaken.
*Ish‘ar* is just like circumcision (*khitan*), shaving the head (*hijamah*), or slitting the ears of some animals for marking purposes. Clearly, none of these fall under the category of mutilation, so how could *ish‘ar* be considered as such?
For this reason, Abu Sa’ib said: We were in a gathering with Imam Waki‘.
A man said that it is reported from Imam al-Nakha‘i that *ish‘ar* is mutilation.
Imam Waki‘, in a tone of displeasure, said: “I say that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) performed *ish‘ar*, and you say that Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i said such? The truth is, you should be imprisoned.”
(Fath)
The noble verse of the Qur’an:
﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تُقَدِّمُوا بَيْنَ يَدَيِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ....﴾ (: al-Hujurat: 1)
also means that wherever a matter is authentically established from Allah and His Messenger, no statements, arguments, or opinions should be introduced, for this is a grave disrespect to Allah and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).
But, alas, the majority of the Ummah is afflicted with this very disease. May Allah Most High grant everyone complete cure from rigid imitation (*taqlid jamid*), ameen.
It is also narrated from Abdullah ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that when he performed *ish‘ar* on a sacrificial animal, he would turn it to face the qiblah and, saying “Bismillah, Allahu Akbar,” would wound its hump.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
By establishing this chapter heading and presenting the hadith, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah intends to refute the position of Hazrat Mujahid. His position is that after donning the ihram, one should perform the marking (ish‘ar) of the sacrificial animal. However, the hadith states that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam first adorned his sacrificial animal with a collar (qaladah), then donned the ihram.

(2)
The benefit of this collaring and marking (ish‘ar) is that, through it, people are made aware not to harm these animals. Furthermore, if the animal mingles with other animals, it can be distinguished. If it gets lost, it can be recognized. Those individuals who have prohibited this practice have brought forth a very far-fetched argument. (Fath al-Bari: 3/686)