Removal of Certain Objections and Doubts Regarding Buffalo Sacrifice
Among those who believe in the impermissibility of buffalo sacrifice, there are certain objections and doubts due to which they are not satisfied with the permissibility of buffalo sacrifice. Some of these doubts and objections are scholarly, and some are common people’s concerns. Below, a few important objections and doubts are addressed to ensure that no confusion remains regarding the issue, and success is from Allah.
Firstly, Scholarly Objections
First Objection: (Absence of Text):
Sacrificing a buffalo is not permissible because there is no text in the Quran and Sunnah regarding the buffalo, and the disputed and differing matters have been ordered by Allah Almighty and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to be referred back to them, and upon referral, there is no mention of the buffalo!
Removal:
(1) Upon referring back to the Quran and Sunnah, the term “al-jamus” (buffalo) is not mentioned, but the genus “al-baqr” (cattle) is explicitly mentioned, and the Ummah has consensus that the buffalo is a non-Arab breed and type of cow. Therefore, it is not the word but the genus that is mentioned, and for this reason, the rulings for both are the same in sacrifice and zakat, as detailed in previous chapters.
(2) For understanding the Quran and Sunnah, it is absolutely necessary to know the language of the Quran and Sunnah (Arabic) and the correct meanings and connotations of the words and terms used therein. The meaning and connotation of the word “al-baqr” as used in the Quran and Sunnah have been clearly explained by Arabic linguists and scholars of Tafsir, Hadith, and Fiqh that “al-ibil, al-baqr, al-ma’iz, al-dhan” (camels, cattle, goats, sheep) include all types and species found in the world. The buffalo (jamus) is also a non-Arab breed and type of the genus “al-baqr,” therefore zakat is obligatory on it and its sacrifice is permissible, as the details have already been mentioned.
(3) For understanding the Quran and Sunnah, the understanding of the Salaf of the Ummah is indispensable, as is well known. The understanding of the Salaf of the Ummah is that the buffalo is a type and breed of cow, and the ruling for both collectively is the same. It is true that this type of cow was introduced during the time of the Prophet and the Companions, but since it was introduced and came before the eyes of the Salaf of the Ummah, they considered it a type of cow and applied the ruling of the cow for zakat and sacrifice.
(4) It is not necessary that all things be mentioned explicitly in the texts of the Quran and Sunnah, nor is the affirmation or negation and the ruling of halal or haram dependent solely on explicit texts. It is obvious that the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم do not mention the names of all things and their types and kinds. Rather, the Shariah of Islam is comprehensive, complete, inclusive, and established. It contains generalities, principles, and rules, whether their ruling is permissibility or prohibition. Similarly, the word “al-baqr” which includes the cattle, encompasses all breeds and types of cows found in the world.
Other Forms: (Derivation from Arabic lexicon):
There is no mention of the buffalo in the Book and Sunnah, there is no text regarding it; it is not correct to justify its sacrifice solely by reasoning from the Arabic lexicon, as the Arabic lexicon cannot be a proof in Shariah matters!!
Clarification:
(1) It is not that the sacrifice of the buffalo has been declared permissible merely by reasoning from the Arabic language; rather, the meanings and connotations of the words “البقرہ” (al-baqara) and “الجاموس” (al-jamus) have been determined from the Arabic lexicon. It is obvious that only experts of a language truly know the meanings and connotations of its words. Thus, from the Arabic lexicon, it is understood that the buffalo is a type of cattle, and this is not a rare or isolated opinion but rather there is consensus among all lexicographers; no one has written against it.
(2) After understanding the meanings and connotations of “جاموس” (buffalo) from the Arabic lexicon, the explanations of scholars of Shariah, mufassirun (exegetes), muhaddithun (hadith scholars), fuqaha (jurists), commentators of hadith, and scholars of fatwas were examined. It was found that the scholars of Shariah also considered the buffalo to be of the same genus as the cow. In fact, there is consensus among the Ummah on the similarity of the rulings for both, meaning there is no contradiction between the Arabic lexicon and the Shariah connotation. Therefore, like the cow, zakat is obligatory on it and its sacrifice is permissible.
(3) The Islamic Shariah, the Qur’an, and the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ are in the Arabic language; therefore, the Arabic language holds significant importance in Shariah. Understanding the intent and purpose of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ depends on knowledge of the Arabic language. Without it, the meanings and connotations of the words of Shariah cannot be understood. Generally, the meanings of the Book and Sunnah correspond to the meanings of the Arabic language. For example, Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
فإن التهجد: ما كان بعد نوم . قاله علقمة ، والأسود وإبراهيم النخعي ، وغير واحد وهو المعروف وغير فى لغة العرب . وكذلك ثبتت الأحاديث عن رسول الله صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم: أنه كان يتهجد بعد نومه ، عن ابن عباس ، وعائشة ، وغير واحد من الصحابة رضي الله عنهم
Because it means to rise after Tahajjud, as Alqamah, Aswad, Ibrahim Al-Mukhfi, and other mufassirun have said, and this is well-known in the Arabic lexicon. Similarly, hadiths narrated through Ibn Abbas, Aisha, and other companions (may Allah be pleased with them) confirm that the Prophet ﷺ would rise after sleeping.
Thus, it is not hidden from the scholars that Islamic scholars from the Salaf to the Khalaf have explained the lexical meanings of Shariah terms in their books (examples of this fill the books of Tafsir, Sharh of Hadith, Fiqh, and Fatwa, and are countless) so that the original usage and meanings of the words can be known. If this were not the case, anyone could derive any meaning from any word, as is the method and habit of the innovators. Consider some statements of the scholars:
Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
وإنما بدأت بما وصفت ، من أن القران نزل بلسان العرب دون غيره: لأنه لا يعلم من إيضاح جمل علم الكتاب أحد جهل سعة لسان العرب ، وكثرة وجوهه ، وجماع معانيه وتفرقها . ومن علمه انتفت عنه الشبه التى دخلت على من جهل لسانها
And I have started with this because the Qur’an was revealed in the Arabic language and not in any other; for anyone who is unaware of the vastness of the Arabic language, its many aspects, and the unity and diversity of its meanings, will be ignorant of the clarification of the expressions of the Book of Allah.
Similarly, regarding the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him), he says:
فإن اختلفوا فلا يكون بعضهم حجة على بعض ، ولا على من بعدهم ، ويرجع فى ذلك إلى لغة القرآن أو السنة أو عموم لغة العرب ، أو أقوال الصحابة فى ذلك
If the followers (Tabi’in) differ in Tafsir, then no one will have proof against the other, nor over those who come after them. In such cases, reference will be made to the language of the Qur’an or Sunnah, or the general Arabic language, or the statements of the companions regarding this matter.
Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
والمعرفة لمعاني كتاب الله إنما تؤخذ من هذين الطريقين من أهل التفسير المولوق بهم من السلف ومن اللغة التى نزل القران بما وهى العرب
The knowledge of the meanings of the Book of Allah is actually acquired through these two ways: from the trustworthy scholars of Tafsir among the Salaf and from the language in which the Qur’an was revealed, that is, the Arabic language.
He also says:
فمعرفة العربية التى خوطبنا بھا مما يعين على أن نفقه مراد الله ورسوله بكلامه ، وكذلك معرفة دلالة الألفاظ على المعاني ، فإن عامة ضلال أهل البدع كان بهذا السبب ، فإنهم صاروا يحملون كلام الله ورسوله على ما يدعون أنه دال عليه ولا يكون الأمر كذلك
Thus, the knowledge of the Arabic language, through which I am addressed, is among the things that help us understand the intended meaning and purpose of Allah and His Messenger’s speech, and likewise assist in understanding the indication of words to meanings; because the common cause of the misguidance of the innovators was that they would interpret the words of Allah and His Messenger, peace be upon him, according to what they claimed those words indicated, whereas that was not the case.
And this is why Sheikh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, uncovered many misguidances of the people of innovation and deviation through the Arabic language. Consider a few examples regarding this:
(1) Using the Qur’an (the word Nidaa) as evidence for the Divine speech being a sound, and clarifying its meaning and implication from the Arabic lexicon while refuting the opponents, he writes:
هذه الصفة: دل عليها القرآن فإن الله أخبر بمناداته لعباده فى غير آية كقوله تعالى: ﴿وناديناه من جانب الطور الأمن﴾ “And ‘al-nidaa’ in the Arabic language is a high-pitched sound; ‘nidaa’ is not applied to what is not a sound, neither in reality nor metaphorically.”
The attribute “speech” is indicated by the Qur’an, because Allah Almighty has informed in many verses about calling His servants, as in the statement:
(And We called to them from the right side of the Mount) and “nidaa” in Arabic language means a loud voice, whether literal or metaphorical; anything that does not have a voice is not called “nidaa.”
(2) Regarding the reality and nature of intellect, exposing the philosophers’ error through the Arabic language, it is written:
ويراد بالعقل الغريزة التى جعلها الله تعالى فى الإنسان يعقل بھا . وأما أولئك ف العقل عندهم جوهر قائم بنفسه كالعاقل وليس هذا مطابقا للغة الرسل والقران
By intellect is meant that natural and innate ability which Allah has placed in humans through which they understand, but for the philosophers, intellect is something self-existent like the wise, and this is not according to the language of the Prophets and the Holy Quran (Arabic)!!
(3) Refuting the Sufis and the proponents of Wahdat al-Wujud through the Arabic language, it is stated:
وأما قوله (وهو معكم) فلفظ (مع) لا تقتضي فى لغة العرب أن يكون أحد الشيقين مختلطا بالآخر كقوله تعالى ﴿اتقوا الله وكونوا مع الصادقين﴾
As for the argument from the statement of the Creator “And He is with you,” the word “with” in the Arabic language does not necessarily imply that two things are mixed or merged with each other, as in the command: (Fear Allah and be with the truthful).
(4) Similarly, regarding the Imamate of Ali, the Rafidi Ibn al-Mutahhar (the author of “Minhaj al-Karamah fi Ma’rifat al-Imamah,” Hussein bin Yusuf Ibn al-Mutahhar Jamal al-Din al-Asadi al-Hilli, who is a Rafidi Mu’tazili) — in refutation of him and generally all Rafidis, Sheikh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote his unparalleled encyclopedic book “Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah fi Naqd Kalam al-Shi’ah al-Qadariyyah” in nine volumes. Sheikh al-Islam used to call this heretic Ibn al-Manjas, and similarly about his book “Minhaj al-Karamah,” he said it deserved to be called “Minhaj al-Nadamah.”
) Among his Quranic evidences, the thirtieth argument is ﴿مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ يَلْتَقِيَانِ ١٩ بَيْنَهُمَا بَرْزَخٌ لَّا يَبْغِيَانِ ٢٠ فَبِأَيِّ آلَاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ ٢١ يَخْرُجُ مِنْهُمَا اللُّؤْلُؤُ وَالْمَرْجَانُ﴾
.
The meaning of Bahrain is: Fatimah and Ali; Barzakh refers to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him; and Lulu and Marjan refer to Hasan and Husayn, may Allah be pleased with them. They deny this interpretation, writing:
أن تسمية هذين بحرين ، وهذا لؤلوا ، وهذا مرجانا ، وجعل النكاح مرجا أمر لا تحتمله لغة العرب بوجه ، لا حقيقة ولا مجازا ، بل كما أنه كذب على الله وعلى القرآن ، فهو كذب على اللغة
To call both of them (Ali and Fatimah) the sea, and Hasan pearls, and Husayn coral, and to call marriage “marj” is something that the Arabic language cannot bear in any way, neither literally nor metaphorically. Rather, just as it is a lie against Allah and His Messenger, it is also a lie against the Arabic language.
Therefore, the objection is valid and appropriate when something is proven without conformity to the Arabic language, for example, when it is said that “Jamus” is not accepted in the ruling of “Baqr” because it does not conform to or is not supported by the Arabic language! Whereas here the matter is the opposite.
In summary, the Arabic language is the foundation and basis for understanding the texts of the Shariah, which is a desired matter and not a defect. And Allah knows best.
Third Issue: (The problem of the type not breaking in cows and buffaloes):
A subsidiary jurisprudential issue that Hanafi jurists have written in their books is this:
من حلف أن لا يأكل لحم البقر فأكل لحم الجاموس لا يكون حانثا ، وإن حلف بالطلاق لم تطلق زوجته بأكل لحم الجاموس
Whoever swears that he will not eat cow meat, then eats buffalo meat, his oath will not be broken. Similarly, if the wife’s divorce is suspended on the condition of not eating cow meat, then eating buffalo meat will not cause the wife to be divorced.
Refutation:
(1) The first point is that this issue is not unanimously agreed upon; rather, a group of jurists have explicitly stated that in the mentioned cases the oath is broken, i.e., the oath is violated. For example, consider:
a: Allama Ibn al-Najim Hanafi states:
ولو حلف لا يأكل لحم بقرة فأكل لحم الجاموس يحنث لا فى عكسه لأنه نوع لا يتناول الأعم
If someone swears that he will not eat cow meat, and then eats buffalo meat, he will be considered a violator of the oath (hanith), but not vice versa, because buffalo is a species and does not include the broader category.
B: Allama Damad Effendi Hanafi explains further:
وفي الخانية: لو حلف أن لا يأكل لحم البقر فأكل لحم الجاموس أو بالعكس حيث ، قال بعضهم: لا يكون حانثا ، وقال بعضهم: إن حلف أن لا يأكل لحم
البقر فأكل لحم الجاموس حنث ، وبالعكس لا يحنث ، وهذا أصح
It is stated in Khaniya that: If someone swears that he will not eat cow meat, but eats buffalo meat, or vice versa (i.e., swears not to eat buffalo meat but eats cow meat), in both cases he will be a perjurer (hanith), although some people have said he will not be a perjurer. Others have said: If he swears not to eat cow meat and eats buffalo meat, he will be a perjurer, but in the opposite case he will not be a perjurer. The most correct opinion is this.
C: Imam Abu Muhammad Baghawee Shafi’i says:
ولو حلف لا يأكل لحم البقر ، فأكل لحم الجاموس يحنث
If someone swears that he will not eat cow meat and eats buffalo meat, he will be a perjurer (hanith).
D: Imam Ahmad ibn al-Raf’ah says:
لو حلف لا يأكل لحم البقر ، فأكل لحم الجاموس ، حنث
If he swears not to eat cow meat, and eats buffalo meat, he will break the oath.
H: Allama Abdul Rahman Jazairi says:
وإذا حلف لا يأكل لحم بقر فإنه يحنث إذا أكله أو أكل لحم الجاموس
If he swears not to eat cow meat, then eating cow or buffalo meat will break the oath.
(2) The second point is that the scholars and jurists who have stated that the oath does not break (عدم حنث) have not indicated any contradiction between cow and buffalo but have established similarity (مجانست) only in the context of customary and habitual understanding regarding the oath. For example, consider the explicit statements of the scholars:
a: Allama Marghinani says:
والجواميس والبقر سواء ، لأن اسم البقر يتناولهما ، إذ هو نوع منه إلا أن أوهام الناس لا تسبق إليه فى ديارنا لقلته ، فلذلك لا يحنث به فى يمينه: لا يأكل لحم بقر ، والله أعلم
Buffaloes and cows are equal because the name “cow” includes both, since buffalo is a species of it. However, due to the scarcity of buffaloes in our region, people’s minds do not go in that direction. Therefore, one who swears not to eat cow meat will not break the oath by eating buffalo meat. And Allah knows best.
Q: Allama Ibn Najim Misri Hanafi says:
ولو حلف لا يأكل لحم بقرة لم يحنث بأكل لحم الجاموس لأنه ، وإن كان بقرا حتى يعد فى نصاب البقر ، ولكن خرج من اليمين يتعارف الناس
If someone swears that he will not eat cow meat, will he not be considered a violator of the oath if he eats buffalo meat?
Because although buffalo is a cow and is even counted in the category of cows, due to common understanding among people, it is excluded from the oath.
A: Similarly, while removing the objection of violating the oath against the similarity of ruling between cow and buffalo, it is written:
ولا يرد عليه ما إذا حلف لا يأكل لحم البقر فأكله فإنه لا يحنث كما فى الهداية لأن أوهام الناس لا تسبق إليه فى ديارنا لقلته ولهذا لو حلف لا يشتري بقرا فاشترى جاموسا يحنث بخلاف البقر الوحشي
And this objection does not arise that if someone swears that he will not eat cow meat and eats buffalo, he will not be considered a violator, as stated in Hidayah, because due to the scarcity of buffalo in our country, people’s thoughts do not go in that direction. It is further written: Therefore, if someone swears that he will not buy a cow and buys a buffalo, he will be considered a violator, contrary to the case of wild cow.
D: Allama Badruddin Ayni Hanafi writes:
والجواميس والبقر سواء لأنها نوع منه ، فتتناولهما النصوص الواردة باسم البقر ، بخلاف ما إذا حلف لا يأكل لحم البقر ، حيث لا يحنث بأكل الجاموس ، لأن مبنى الأيمان على العرف وفي العادة أوهام الناس لا يسبق إليه
Buffaloes and cows are equal, because buffalo is a type of it, therefore the texts that mention cow include both. Contrary to the issue that if someone swears not to eat cow meat, eating buffalo meat does not break the oath, because oaths are based on common usage, and generally people do not think of buffalo.
H: Allama Abdul Ghani Wamashqi says:
والجواميس والبقر سواء لاتحاد الجنسية إذ هو نوع منه ، وإنما لم يحنث بأكل الجاموس إذا حلف لا يأكل لحم البقر لعدم العرف
Due to the similarity of genus, buffaloes and cows are equal, because buffalo is a type of it. However, if someone swears not to eat cow meat, eating buffalo meat does not break the oath because it is not customary.
(3) The chapter on oaths differs from other chapters such as those on acts of worship, etc. This is why scholars, despite the similarity in rulings for cows and buffaloes, have given a separate special explanation of this issue in the chapter on oaths:
لأن مبنى الأيمان على العرف
Because the basis (foundation) of oaths is custom.
Accordingly, Allama Abu Bakr Zubaidi Yamini states very clearly:
(والجواميس والبقر سواء يعني فى الزكاة والأضحية واعتبار الربا أما فى الأيمان إذا حلف لا يأكل لحم البقر لم يحنث بالجاموس لعدم العرف وقلته فى بلادنا فلم يتناوله اليمين حتى لو كثر فى موضع ينبغي أن يحنث
Buffaloes and cows are equal, meaning in terms of zakat, sacrifice, and usury. As for the issue of oaths, if someone swears not to eat cow meat, then eating buffalo meat would not be breaking the oath. This is due to the absence of custom and the scarcity of buffaloes in our country, which is why buffaloes are not included in the oath. However, if in some place buffaloes are abundant, then breaking the oath would be appropriate.
(4) In the light of principles and regulations, only the correct is valid in Shariah. Accordingly, Ustadh Doctor Muhammad Mustafa Al-Zuhaili writes regarding the authority and status of custom:
يتفق الأئمة عمليا على اعتبار العرف الصحيح حجة ودليلا شرعيا . . . العرف الصحيح يعتبر دليلا شرعيا وحجة للأحكام عند فقد النص والإجماع ، وقد يقدم على القياس وإن الأحكام المبنية على العرف تتغير بتغير الأعراف
The Imams practically agree on accepting the correct custom as proof and Shariah evidence. In the absence of text and consensus, the correct custom is considered Shariah evidence and proof for rulings, and sometimes it is given precedence over analogy. And rulings based on custom change when customs change. And Allah knows best.
Fourth Objection: (Inference from Consensus):
It is not correct to classify the buffalo as a species of cow solely based on consensus! And the claim of consensus on the permissibility of sacrificing a buffalo is questionable and indeed absolutely wrong. The researched fact is that its sacrifice is impermissible!!
Explanation:
(1) Neither has the buffalo been classified as a species of cow solely on the basis of consensus, nor has the permissibility of its sacrifice been established. Rather, in reality, there are clear statements from linguists, jurists, hadith scholars, and scholars of fatwas regarding the buffalo being a species of cow, as has already been mentioned. On these very grounds, there is consensus among scholars on the similarity of rulings between the cow and the buffalo, and throughout history, both have been equally subject to the obligation of zakat and the permissibility of sacrifice.
(2) The consensus of these reliable scholars is not on the sacrifice of the buffalo, but rather on the similarity of the Shariah ruling for both the buffalo and the cow, in other matters of Shariah on which the community has relied and trusted, as has already been mentioned, and there is no evidence to differentiate between the rulings of Zakat and sacrifice.
(3) Consensus is not an unreliable, untrustworthy, or trivial matter; rather, the consensus of the Ummah is the truth and a Shariah proof. It is one of the agreed-upon sources of Shariah, and following and adopting it is obligatory. Its authority is not established by reason and logic but by the Shariah evidences themselves, as the scholars of research have clarified.
Thus, Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, states regarding the victory of consensus: He is among those scholarly researchers who have stated that the ruling for cow and buffalo is the same, and in this regard, he has also narrated the consensus of Imam Ibn al-Mundhir, may Allah have mercy on him.
وأما إجماع الأمة فهو فى نفسه حق لا تجتمع الأمة على ضلالة
As for the consensus of the Ummah, it is inherently true; the Ummah cannot unite upon misguidance.
He also states:
معنى الإجماع: أن تجتمع علماء المسلمين على حكم من الأحكام ، وإذا ثبت إجماع الأمة على حكم من الأحكام لم يكن لأحد أن يخرج عن إجماعهم فإن الأمة لا تجتمع على ضلالة
The meaning of consensus is that the scholars of the Muslims unanimously agree upon a ruling from the rulings. And when the consensus of the Ummah on a ruling is established, no one has the authority to deviate from their consensus because the Ummah cannot agree upon misguidance.
Similarly, explaining the authority of consensus, he further states:
فعصم الله أمته أن تجتمع على ضلالة ، وجعل فيها من تقوم به الحجة إلى یوم القيامة ، ولهذا كان إجماعهم حجة كما كان الكتاب والسنة حجة
Allah Almighty has protected the Ummah of Muhammad, peace be upon him, from uniting upon misguidance, and He has kept among the Ummah such people through whom proof will remain established until the Day of Judgment. Therefore, their consensus is as authoritative as the Book and the Sunnah are authoritative. Likewise, explaining the severity of opposing an indisputable consensus, he states:
وهذه الآية أى ﴿ومن يشاقق الرسول . . .﴾ It indicates that the consensus of the believers is proof in the sense that opposing them entails opposing the Messenger, and that whatever they have unanimously agreed upon must have a text from the Messenger. So every issue that is decisively established by consensus and without dispute among the believers is among those matters in which Allah has made guidance clear, and whoever opposes such consensus is a disbeliever just as one who opposes a clear text is a disbeliever.
This noble verse (ومن یشاقق الرسول ۔ ۔ ۔ ) indicates that the consensus of the believers is authoritative in that opposing them entails opposing the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and that every issue upon which there is consensus necessarily has a text from the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Therefore, every issue upon which there is definitive consensus and no dispute among the believers is among those matters in which Allah has made guidance manifest, and whoever opposes such consensus will become a disbeliever just as one who opposes a clear and evident text becomes a disbeliever!
Therefore, the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah—linguists of Arabic, scholars of Shariah, exegetes, hadith scholars, jurists, and mujtahids—on the buffalo being of the same species as the cow and the similarity of their rulings is indisputable and cannot be refuted or denied.
(4) Regarding the agreement in species and ruling between buffalo and cow, and the consensus of the scholars of the Ummah, the statement of Imam Ahl al-Sunnah Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, etc.:
من ادعى الإجماع فهو كاذب (Whoever claims consensus is a liar)
should not cause any concern, because the aforementioned Imam, may Allah have mercy on him, himself believed in the authority of consensus and its status as a source of Shariah, and he has transmitted consensus in many issues. Therefore, the intended meaning of this statement is not the invalidity of consensus or the denial of its existence, but in light of the explanations of the scholars, this statement has several interpretations as follows:
(1) Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said this out of caution and prudence, meaning one should be careful regarding consensus because there might be some disagreement of which the claimant is unaware.
(2) This statement was made concerning those who do not have correct and extensive knowledge of the disagreements of the Salaf in issues, hence caution and verification are required when transmitting consensus, as is evident from the next sentence where the Prophet, peace be upon him, said:
لعل الناس اختلفوا ما يدريه ، ولم ينته إليه؟ فليقل: لا نعلم الناس اختلفوا
Perhaps people differed, and he was unaware of it, or he did not have access to it? Therefore, it should be said: We do not know if there is disagreement among people in this matter.
(3) Imam Ahmad and other scholars of Hadith, may Allah have mercy on them, had previously encountered people like Bishr, Ibn Hulayah, and others among the theologians and rationalists who used to reject hadiths by claiming consensus of people against them. Therefore, they clarified that this claim is false, and such statements cannot be used to reject the Sunnah. The purpose is not to deny the existence of consensus. And Allah knows best.
Fifth Issue: (The Persian nature of the buffalo and the contradiction with Arabic lexicon):
The word “al-jamus” for buffalo is not an Arabic word, and the buffalo is not an Arab animal either. Therefore, it is not correct to use Arabic dictionaries as evidence for its reality and nature. How can Arabs know about a foreign animal (buffalo)?
Explanation:
(1) Undoubtedly, the word “al-jamus” is not an Arabic word but a Persian loanword, and it does not appear in the Sunnah. However, many other words that are originally non-Arabic have been used in the Holy Quran. Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) has narrated from the predecessors that there are many words in the Quran that originate from non-Arabic languages, and this is also true according to reality. He says:
عن أبى ميسرة ، قال: فى القرآن من كل لسان
Abu Misrah says: There are words from every language in the Quran.
If the meanings and concepts of these words are derived from Arabic dictionaries, then what is wrong with the word “al-jamus” that it is not correct to argue its nature from Arabic dictionaries?
For brevity, I will suffice with just one example:
Like the Persian loanword “al-jamus,” the word “sajil” appearing in the Holy Quran is also a Persian word and, like “gau-mish,” is a Persian word adapted into Arabic, as the commentators have narrated from Arabic linguists. Hafiz Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
سجيل وهى بالفارسية حجارة من طين ، قاله ابن عباس وغيره . وقال بعضهم: أى من سنك وهو الحجر ، وكل وهو الطين
“Sajil” is a Persian word meaning “clay stone.” This was said by Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) and others, and some have said that it is a Persian word “sang o kal,” meaning “stone and wet clay (mud, clay).”
And in another place they write:
أنهما كلمتان بالفارسية ، جعلتهما العرب كلمة واحدة ، وإنما هو سنج وحل يعني بالسنج: الحجر ، والحل الطين
These are two Persian words which the Arabs combined into one word; in fact, it is “stone and clay,” where stone means rock and clay means mud and wet earth.
And regarding “Sajeel,” all these explanations are present in all the lexicographers’ works, from where the scholars of Tafsir have derived it. Thus, Ibn Manzur al-Dimashqi writes:
معرب دخيل ، وهو سنك وكل أى حجارة وطين . . . وقال أهل اللغة: هذا فارسي والعرب لا تعرف هذا . . . ومن كلام الفرس ما لا يحصى مما قد أعربته العرب نحو جاموس وديباج
“Sajeel” is a non-Arabic word, which has been adapted into the Arabic language, and it means stone and clay, i.e., rock and mud… The linguists have said that this is a Persian word, unknown to the Arabs. And there are countless Persian words which the Arabs have adapted into Arabic, such as “Jāmūs” meaning buffalo and “Dibāj” meaning silk.
Similarly, “Maqālīd” is also a Persian word meaning keys.
Also, “Al-Marjān” is a Persian word meaning red coral.
Likewise, the Holy Quran contains many loanwords from other languages, for example مشكاة ، الیم ، الطور ، أباريق ، استبرق ، القسطاس ، الغساق and others. [
: For the adaptation of words from non-Arabic languages and further examples, please see:
]
(2) The issue remains: how would the Arabs know about a foreign animal (buffalo)? It should be clear that being an Arab or Arabic is one thing, and being an expert in Arabic linguistics is another. Thus, expertise in Arabic linguistics and depth in the principles of linguistics can be attained by a non-Arab, i.e., a foreigner. It is not necessary that an expert in Arabic linguistics be of Arab origin and lineage. Alhamdulillah, there are many scholars of linguistics who, despite being of foreign origin and lineage, are not only experts in the Arabic language but also hold the status of leadership in the field. Therefore, on one hand, due to being foreign, they are well acquainted with the nature and essence of the “cow buffalo” (buffalo), and on the other hand, they are aware that in Arabic linguistics, the term for “cow buffalo” is “al-jamus” and its genus is “baqar” (cow), including its species and breed. For example, consider some eminent scholars of Arabic linguistics who are of foreign origin and lineage and are well versed in both Arab and non-Arab matters:
(1) The linguistic scholar Allama Abu Mansur Muhammad bin Ahmad bin al-Azhar bin Talhah bin Nuh bin al-Azhar bin Nuh bin Hatim al-Azhari al-Harawi al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him
. He was born in the region of Herat in Khorasan. Initially, his focus was on jurisprudence, but then a passion for the knowledge of Arabic language and literature prevailed. Consequently, he undertook many journeys to acquire it and gained extensive knowledge about tribes and their conditions. He passed away in Herat during the year of the “Bay’ al-Akhir” (last sale). Among his famous works is “Tahdhib al-Lughah,” which spans more than ten volumes, as well as “Al-Taqrib fi al-Tafsir,” “Al-Zahir fi Ghara’ib al-Alfaz,” “Ilal al-Qira’at,” and a book on the news of Yazid bin Muawiyah, among others.
(2) A scholar of grammar, lexicography, poetry, Arab events and incidents, and related matters, Allama Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Ismail Andalusi, known as Ibn Sida (blind), may Allah have mercy on him
He was born in the city of Murcia (Spain), and passed away on the 26th of Rabi’ al-Akhir in Dāniyah.
Among his famous works are “Al-Muhkam wal-Muheet al-Azam fi Lughah al-Arab,” which spans twelve volumes arranged alphabetically, as well as “Al-Aneeq fi Sharh al-Hamasah,” “Al-Wafi fi Ilm al-Qawafi,” “Sharh al-Talaq al-Mantiq,” and “Kitab al-‘Alim fi al-Lughah,” etc.
(3) The well-known linguist and expert in other sciences, Allama Abu Tahir Majd al-Din Muhammad bin Yaqub bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim Firoozabadi Shirazi Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him
He was born in the city of Kazeroon (Iran) and was raised there, then moved to Shiraz (a city in the province of Fars, Iran) where he acquired knowledge of Arabic language and literature from his father and other scholars of Shiraz. Then he went to Iraq and studied from the scholars there, then proceeded to Cairo and gained knowledge from the scholars there. Similarly, he traveled to Rome, India, and other places. Then he went to Zabid and spent twenty years there, and he passed away there on the night of the twentieth of Shawwal.
Among his famous works are Al-Qamus al-Muheet, Al-Qabus al-Waseet, and Al-Balaghat fi Tarjamat Ataa al-Nahw wa al-Lugha, etc.
(4) The renowned scholar, linguist, and calligrapher, Allama Abu Nasr Ismail bin Hamad, who is a disciple of Farabi, may Allah have mercy on him
.
He originally belonged to the Turkic region of Farab (a city in present-day Kazakhstan), then traveled to Iraq where he studied Arabic under Abu Ali Farsi and Abu Saeed Sirafi. After that, he traveled to Hijaz, toured areas such as Rabiah and Muzar, and demonstrated great dedication in acquiring knowledge. He then returned to Khorasan and later moved to Nishapur, where he remained engaged in teaching, writing, and authorship until the final stage of his life, and he passed away there.
His famous works include: Sataaj al-Lugha wa Sahah al-Arabiyya, Kitab al-Muqaddimah fi al-Nahw, and Kitab fi al-‘Arud, among others.
In summary, among the experts of Arabic lexicography who are non-Arabs and from regions where buffaloes were found, they have a clear understanding of the similarity and consanguinity between buffaloes and cows, and their explanations are undoubtedly reliable, especially since there is no disagreement on this matter. And Allah knows best.
Sixth Issue: (Conflict between Language and Sharia):
Linguists have defined buffalo as a species of the cow genus, but the Sharia does not mention buffalo; therefore, there is a conflict between language and Sharia, and in such a case, Sharia will take precedence and the linguistic meaning will be rejected!!
Resolution:
(1) The word buffalo is not mentioned in Sharia, however, the term al-baqr, meaning cow, is mentioned, and there is no specification regarding any species, breed, color, shape, or name or title in it; rather, al-baqr is general. Now, according to language and Sharia, whatever falls under the term al-baqr is included in this ruling.
(2) “The difference, contradiction, and preference between lexicon and Sharia” is a mentioned principle of the Muslim leader, there is little disagreement about this, but in the issue under discussion, the situation is completely opposite, meaning there is no difference or contradiction between lexicon and Sharia, rather there is complete conformity and similarity. And, praise be to Allah, regarding the classification of the buffalo as a type of cow, the explanations given by the lexicographers are exactly the same as those given by the scholars of Sharia, interpreters, hadith scholars, jurists of the Ummah, and Imams of Ijtihad and fatwas. In the historical periods of the Salaf of the Ummah, the legal ruling of the buffalo and the cow in matters of zakat and sacrifice has been the same. If there really was any contradiction between lexicon and Sharia, then somewhere it would have definitely been narrated from the trustees of Sharia and recorded in books. And Allah knows best.
Seventh Objection: (The application and limitation of Baqar):
The sacrifice of a buffalo is not permissible, because a buffalo is not an absolute cow; rather, in Arabic it is called “ضان البقر” and in Persian it is called “Gao Mish,” which has been Arabized as “Jamūs,” while for sacrifice, it is necessary to have an absolute cow without any restriction!!
Removal:
(1) In Shariah rulings, the meanings and implications of words and concepts are given more importance than the words themselves. After the type of cow was identified as a buffalo, the Arabs gave it a name based on apparent resemblance, whether absolute or restricted, Shariah does not debate this; it pertains to naming and labeling. The real requirement is the name, its reality, and its ruling. The discussion is about what ruling the scholars of Shariah have applied to this animal. Clarifications have already been made that the scholars of the Ummah have kept the ruling the same for both absolute and restricted types of cows.
(2) The point of the application and limitation of the name was also present before the predecessors of the Ummah because they themselves explicitly stated this limited name and at the same time equated the ruling for both cow and buffalo, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, the consideration of the name being absolute or limited does not affect the ruling.
(3) Just as the Arabs have given the specific term “Dhan al-Baqar” to the species of cow buffalo, similarly they have given the specific term “Dhan” to camels and other species as well. For example, the Bakhti camel was called “Dhan al-Ibil,” as the scholars have explicitly stated. The expert scholar on the reality and nature of animals and their species and breeds, Al-Jahiz Al-Basri, says:
والجواميس عندهم ضأن البقر ، والبخت عندهم ضأن الابل، والبراذين عندهم ضأن الخيل
Buffaloes are cows to them, bulls are camels to them, and stallions are horses to the Tatuans.
Similarly, the scholar Abdullah ibn Qutaybah Dinawari writes in Uyoon al-Akhbar:
ويقال: الجواميس ضأن البقر ، والبحث ضأن الإبل ، والبراذين ضأن الخيل …
Buffaloes are called cows, bulls are called camels (Khorasani), and stallions are called horses to the Tatuans…
Exactly the same is stated in “Al-‘Iqd al-Farid” by the scholar Muhammad Ahmad known as Ibn Abd Rabbih.
The scholar Abu al-Fadl Ahmad ibn Muhammad Maydani Nisaburi says:
والأفراس عند العرب معز الخيل ، والبراذين ضأنها ، كما أن البُحْتَ ضأن الإبل والجواميس ضأن البقر
Among the Arabs, the Faras is a “goat horse” and the Tatu is a “stallion horse,” just as the Bakhti camel is a “bull camel” and buffaloes are “bull cows.”
Allama Shahabuddin Ahmad bin Abdul Wahab Al-Nawiri says:
والبحتى كالبغل ، ويقال: البحث ضأن الإبل ، وهى متولدة عن فساد منى العراب
Bakhti camels are like mule camels, and Bakhti camels are called camel mules, which are born from the impure semen of Arab lineage camels.
From these statements, it is understood that Bakhti camels are not absolutely considered camels by name, but rather restricted camels which the Arabs call “Dhan al-Ibil.” And since there is no disagreement regarding the zakat and sacrifice of Bakhti camels, then the buffalo is also “Dhan al-Baqar,” and there should be no objection in its zakat and sacrifice either!!
Just as the restriction in the names of types of camels does not affect the ruling of zakat and sacrifice, similarly the restricted name of the buffalo will not affect the legitimacy of zakat and sacrifice. And Allah knows best.
Eighth Objection: (Lack of evidence of sacrifice of buffalo by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Companions):
The sacrifice of a buffalo is not permissible because the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did not sacrifice a buffalo.
Removal:
(1) Is it necessary for the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to have practically performed the sacrifice of a buffalo for its permissibility, whether the means were available or not? Are the texts of Shariah and the understanding and practice of the Salaf of the Ummah in light of the Shariah principles not sufficient? If they are sufficient, then the objection is removed; and if not sufficient, then is it proven that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Companions ate buffalo meat? Or is it proven that they took its zakat? Is the sacrifice of all types and breeds of sacrificial animals found in the world proven from the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Companions? Or is it proven that the zakat of all kinds of camels, cows, and goats was taken by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Companions? Or is it proven that they ate their meat? It is obvious that the answers to these questions are negative.
And this is the reason why we say the sacrifice of a buffalo is permissible, but not Sunnah, and there is a clear difference between the two, as is not hidden.
(2) The absence of evidence that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Companions did not sacrifice buffalo, or take its zakat, or eat its meat, is not because it was available and provided to them but was impermissible, so they did not sacrifice it; rather, the matter was that this species was not present or known among them. When it became present, our Salaf who were present considered it to be a cow, and there is no transmitted disagreement on this, rather there is consensus that equal zakat was taken on both cows and buffaloes and sacrifices were made.
This is why when the scholar Ibn Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about the sacrifice of a buffalo, he said:
“A buffalo is a type of cow, and Allah Almighty has only mentioned in the Qur’an those things which were known among the Arabs… and the buffalo was not known among the Arabs.”
And Allah knows best.
New Forms: (Sacrificing a buffalo is an addition to worship):
Sacrifice is an act of worship, and the prescribed animals do not include buffalo; therefore, adding a buffalo increases the act of worship, and this is not permissible. It is similar to adding extra units to the prescribed number of prayers, which is not allowed. Hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
باب القربات يقتصر فيه على النصوص ، ولا يتصرف فيه بأنواع الأقبسة والآزاء
In the chapter of acts of devotion (worship), the texts will be adhered to, and no alterations will be made based on various conjectures and opinions.
Also, this has been narrated from Hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, by Allama Albani, may Allah have mercy on him.
Removal:
(1) Sacrifice is undoubtedly an act of worship, and its animals are specified, which are in eight categories: camel, cow, goat, and ram (male and female), and buffalo is also considered a cow, which was found in regions other than Arabia. The cow is specified, and similarly, Bactrian and other types are included under camels, as well as other breeds of goats are included under goats. This is not an addition to the sacrificial animals but rather the breeds of these same animals found in the world. Calling it an addition is an exaggeration and undue strictness because it implies that only the breeds from the Holy Hijaz, Mecca, and Medina are permissible for sacrifice, and not those from other regions. There is no evidence in Islamic law for such restriction and limitation!
An addition to the sacrificial animals would occur and be stated if, besides the mentioned four categories, a fifth category of animal was included for sacrifice!
(2) Regarding sacrifice, in the explanation of Bahimta al-An’am, the commentators, Hadith explainers, jurists, and mujtahids have clarified eight pairs and have explicitly stated the impermissibility and validity of sacrificing other animals. Among the examples of other animals, they have mentioned wild cows, donkeys, and deer, etc. According to our limited knowledge, no one has cited buffalo as an example. Similarly, other types of cows and other varieties of camels like Bakhati, etc., have not been mentioned, as these would be additions to the eight pairs, and sacrifice is an act of worship in which additions are not permissible. Therefore, the sacrifice of buffalo and Bakhati, etc., is not permissible!!
This is a clear proof that adding a fifth species beyond these four in sacrifice, which is an act of worship, would be an innovation and arbitrary addition. Their types and breeds are obviously included in these, unless there is an authentic reason for exception. And Allah knows best.
(3) The ruling on gender and type is the same; the buffalo is considered of the same species as the cow. There is no arbitrary addition in worship. Accordingly, Allama Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, who quoted the statement of Hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, باب القربات يقتصر, himself issued a fatwa on zakat for buffaloes. Thus, the student of Allama, may Allah have mercy on him, Sheikh Hussain bin Awdat Al-Awaisha narrates:
وسئل شيخنا – رحمه الله -: هل فى الجاموس زكاة؟ فأجاب: نعم فى الجاموس زكاة لأنه نوع من أنواع البقر
Our Sheikh – Allama Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked: Is there zakat on buffaloes? He replied: Yes, there is zakat on buffaloes because they are a type of cow.
The author of the book, a student of Rashid Sheikh Hussain Awaisha, clarified in the preface that “Our Sheikh” refers to Allama Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, writing:
وقد رجعت لشيخنا الألباني – شفاه الله تعالى وعافاه – فى كثير من المسائل ، فاستفدت منه ، وأنسْتُ برأيه ، فجزاه الله عني وعن المسلمين خيراً
I frequently referred to Sheikh Albani – may Allah grant him healing and well-being – in many issues, benefited from him, and was pleased with his opinion. May Allah reward him on my behalf and on behalf of the Muslims.
Tenth Issue: (Precautionary Fatwas of Some Scholars):
The sacrifice of a buffalo is not permissible; this is why the Ahl al-Hadith scholars have issued precautionary fatwas in this regard.
Removal:
(1) The majority of the scholars of the Ummah have classified the buffalo as a type of cow, and indeed, the consensus of the Ummah is transmitted on the ruling of their union. Like the cow, zakat is obligatory on the buffalo and sacrifice is permissible. To the best of our knowledge, the first to mention this precaution was Sheikh al-Hadith Allama Ubaidullah al-Rahmani Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him, in “Mir’at al-Mafatih,” and then on this basis, the great investigator Hafiz Zubair Alizai and others issued precautionary fatwas.
However, it should be clear that the “precaution” of Sheikh al-Hadith, may Allah have mercy on him, does not mean prohibition, rather it means permissibility,
as he explicitly stated later that those who perform sacrifice are not to be blamed. Also, the clarification and confirmation of permissibility is evident from the fact that the Allama, may Allah have mercy on him, issued a fatwa elsewhere on the absolute permissibility of sacrificing cow, bull, and buffalo. [As mentioned in the tenth chapter, see:
]
(2) The fatwa of precaution is somewhat questionable, because the point of discussion is whether the buffalo is of the species of cow or not? If it is, then it is permissible; otherwise, it is not permissible. There is no place for precaution in between.
Thus, Hafiz Abu Yahya Noor Puri writes:
Then this caution is also somewhat strange because if it is not a buffalo or a cow, then its sacrifice is not valid at all, and if it is a cow, then its sacrifice is completely valid; there is no middle ground in this matter.
(3) Saying “caution” itself indicates dissatisfaction with invalidity; otherwise, if there is satisfaction, nothing prevents explicitly stating invalidity. And Allah knows best.
Secondly: Public doubts
First doubt: (Sacrificial animals are eight pairs, not ten):
The sacrifice of a buffalo is not valid because the legitimate sacrificial animals are eight pairs; if the buffalo is included, the number becomes ten. Therefore, counting the buffalo as a sacrificial animal is an addition to the Book of Allah, which is completely false and incorrect.
Removal:
(1) The eight pairs refer to their species, as has been explained in light of the statements of lexicographers, Quranic commentators, Hadith scholars, jurists, mujtahids, and fatwa experts. Therefore, the varieties and breeds of these species are included in this; their number will not increase but will be included within these eight pairs. For example, the breeds of camels such as Bakhti and Arab, and similarly the breeds of cows such as Arab, Jawamis, Darbaniya, etc., the practice of the previous Ummah was to give zakat and sacrifice from all types and breeds without distinction; no one considered this an increase.
(2) However, if a sacrifice is made from a fifth species besides these four species of animals (including the eight pairs of females), then the number will become ten instead of eight, which will be invalid. For example, deer, wild cows, donkeys, etc., as the scholars, commentators, and muhaddithin have clarified with examples.
Second resemblance: (The issue of pairing):
The sacrifice of a buffalo is not permissible, and a buffalo is not of the cow species, because a buffalo is not born from the mating of a cow and a bull! !
Explanation:
(1) It has been mentioned repeatedly that the buffalo is a type of cow and a foreign breed found in Persia, Africa, etc. This is why its appearance is different from ordinary cows. Naturally, the offspring will be of the same species as the male and female that mate. Therefore, ordinary cows will produce ordinary bulls, and buffaloes will produce calves from buffalo mating. Neither will calves be produced from such mating, nor will ordinary cows be born from this mating. However, if mixed mating occurs between the two, then like hybrid camels, a third mixed generation will be produced. A clear example of this is the human species: all humans worldwide share the same species, but regionally and racially, height, appearance, and complexion differ. Obviously, black children with African features, stature, shape, and complexion will not be born from white Arab men and women, but children with Arab features will be born, and vice versa.
Despite these differences, all are part of the human species, and no one can be excluded from the human species!
(2) This issue of mating does not affect the Shariah ruling, as long as the animal is not excluded from the eight categories. For a clear explanation, carefully consider the statement of Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him: ولو نزا كبش ماعزة ، أو تيس ضائنة فتتحت كان فى نتاجها الصدقة لأنها عتم كلها وهكذا لو نزا جاموس بقرة ، أو ثور حاموسة ، أو يخني عربية ، أو عربي بختية كانت الصدقات فى نتاجها كلها؛ لأنها بقر كلها ، ألا ترى أنا نصدق البحت مع العراب وأصناف الإبل كلها ، وهى مختلفة الخلق ونصدق الجواميس مع البقر والدربانية . مع العراب وأصناف البقر كلها وهى مختلفة ، والصان ينتج المعز وأصناف المعز ، والضأن كلها؛ لأن كلها غنم وبقر وإبل
If a bull mates with a goat, or a billy goat mates with a cow, and offspring are born, then zakat is due on them because they are all goats. Similarly, if a buffalo mates with a cow, or a bull mates with a buffalo, or a hybrid camel mates with an Arabian camel, or an Arabian hybrid mates with a hybrid camel, then zakat is due on all their offspring because they are all cows. Do you not see that we pay zakat on Arabian camels and all types of camels along with hybrid camels, even though they differ in structure, appearance, and stature? And we pay zakat on buffaloes along with Arabian, Darbaniya, and other types of cows, even though they differ. And we pay zakat on all bulls from which many types of goats are born because they are all goats, cows, and camels. Therefore, the issue of mating does not affect the ruling. And Allah knows best.
Third similarity: (Sacrifice of buffalo and the resemblance of followers):
The sacrifice of a buffalo is not permissible, but among the followers of the Hanafi school, the sacrifice of a buffalo is permissible. Declaring it permissible necessarily implies agreement with those followers.
Removal:
(1) The issue of sacrificing a buffalo is not only a matter for the followers of the Hanafi school but also concerns the scholars and Imams of the four major Sunni schools, both past and present, including all Mujtahids, jurists, and the majority of the Ummah, who have unanimously considered the buffalo as a type of cow. Zakat has been collected on it according to the standards and conditions of the cow, and sacrifices have been performed accordingly throughout history. This understanding is supported by evidence, statements, and teachings, and is the prevailing and correct view. The disagreement on this issue has only emerged to some extent in the last one or two centuries.
(2) As for the matter of conformity or similarity with the Hanafi school or other followers, it is clear that this approach is completely against the methodology of Ahl al-Hadith. Our methodology is to adhere to evidence and not to show bias towards anyone except the truth. Praise be to Allah, Salafism and Ahl al-Hadith are not merely about opposing Hanafism or followers of any school. Accordingly, the Muhaddith of the era, Allama Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, states:
ندور مع الدليل حيث دار ولانتعصب للرجال ، ولاننحاز لأحد إلا للحق كمانراه ونعتقده
We follow the evidence wherever it leads; we do not show bias towards anyone nor lean towards anyone except the truth, as we see it or believe it.
Similarly, the leniency of Sheikh Allama Abdul Aziz bin Baz, may Allah have mercy on him, states:
أما مسائل الخلاف فمنهجي فيها هو ترجيح ما يقتضي الدليل ترجيحه والفتوى بذلك سواء وافق ذلك مذهب الحنابلة أم خالفه لأن الحق أحق بالاتباع
In matters of disagreement, my methodology is to give preference to the view that is most deserving of preference based on evidence, and I issue fatwas accordingly; whether it aligns with the Hanbali school or opposes it, because the truth deserves to be followed more. And Allah knows best.
Fourth doubt: (Difference in appearance, form, and temperament between buffalo and cow):
Sacrifice of a buffalo is not permissible, and it cannot be considered of the cow species, because there are many apparent and meaningful differences between the two, such as its color, shape and form, temperament and nature, etc., for example, the cow avoids water, while the buffalo prefers to stay in water and mud.
Removal:
(1) When linguistically and legally a buffalo is considered of the cow species, and there is unanimous consensus of the entire Ummah regarding the similarity of rulings for both in legal matters, then these apparent and meaningful differences will have no effect on its ruling, because the main issue is whether it belongs to the species of cattle or not.
(2) The scholars of all the sciences and arts of the Salaf of the Ummah, who have decided on the unity of species and the similarity in Shariah ruling, are well aware of the apparent natural differences between the two, and despite this, they have made this decision, as their books and writings indicate, and there is no reported disagreement or objection to this decision. Therefore, after all these aspects have become clear, the issue of apparent differences no longer remains a cause for concern.
(3) After the unity of species is established, apparent differences do not prevent sacrifice; otherwise, under the category of goats, there are sheep, lambs, etc., which have distinct appearances. Similarly, cows and bulls have numerous colors and shapes that are beyond limitation,
. Accordingly, Allama Ibn Hazm
may Allah have mercy on him, while removing this doubt, writes:
وقد قال بعض الناس البحت ضأن الإبل والجواميس ضأن البقر ، وقد رأينا الحمر المريسية وحمر الفجالين وحمر الأعراب المصامدة نوعا واحدا و بينها
من الاختلاف أكثر مما بين الجواميس وسائر البقر وكذلك جميع الأنواع
Some people have said that Bakhati are “camel geldings” and buffaloes are “cow geldings,” whereas we have counted the donkeys of Marisi, the donkeys of Fajaliyah, and the villagers’ donkeys of the Musamadi (Barbari) tribes as one species, while the differences among them are greater than those between buffaloes and other cows.
Also, the Muhaddith of the era, Allama Abdul Qadir Hisarwi, commenting on the writing of Sheikh al-Hadith Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on them both, states:
“… As for the statement of Mawlana that there is a difference in the appearance and form of the camel and buffalo, this doubt may also arise for the people of Hadith that if you place a goat, a billy goat, a sheep, a lamb, and a kid side by side and judge, their appearance and form differ vastly, and there is also a legal difference, as Qadi Iyad states: الإجماع على أنه يجزئ الجذع من الضأن وأنه لا يجزئ جزع من المعز meaning there is consensus among scholars that the trunk of a sheep suffices for sacrifice, but the trunk of a goat does not suffice.”
When their appearance, form, and legal ruling differ, then why are they considered equal and of one species in zakat and sacrifice?
And Allah knows best.
(4) If, hypothetically, a calf is born from the mating of a cow and a bull that has the shape, build, and color of a buffalo, would its sacrifice also be invalid merely because its appearance is not like that of a cow or bull but like that of a buffalo calf?
Obviously, the answer will be no, because the ruling does not change due to outward differences, since it is still the offspring of a cow and bull, even if its appearance is different. Understand this matter without further comment from the following Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ:
عن أبى هريرة ، قال: جاء رجل من بني فزارة إلى النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: إن امرأتي ولدت غلاما أسود ، فقال النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم: ”هل لك من إبل؟ قال: نعم ، قال: ”فما ألوانها؟ قال: حمر ، قال: ”هل فيها من أورق؟ قال: إن فيها لورقا ، قال: فأنى أتاها ذلك؟ قال: عسى أن يكون نزعه عرق ، قال: وهذا عسى أن يكون نزعه عرق
Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that a man from the tribe of Banu Fazara came to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and said: “My wife has given birth to a black child.” The Prophet ﷺ asked: “Do you have camels?” He said: “Yes.” The Prophet ﷺ asked: “What colors are they?” He said: “Red.” The Prophet ﷺ asked: “Are there any camels among them that are dark gray?” He replied: “There are many black ones among them.” The Prophet ﷺ asked: “Where did these black ones come from among the red camels?” He said: “Perhaps some vein pulled it.” The Prophet ﷺ said: “It is possible that some vein also pulled this child.”!!
Fifth Doubt: (The buffalo has been analogized to the cow):
The basis for the permissibility of sacrificing a buffalo is the analogy to the cow, which is the argument of the Hanafis, while analogizing the buffalo to the cow is not correct.
Refutation:
(1) The buffalo has not been analogized to the cow. The Hanafi scholars have also not made an analogy; rather, the buffalo is unanimously considered a species of the genus cow, as the details have already been mentioned, and the Hanafi scholars have also referred to the buffalo as belonging to the genus cow, as is explicitly stated in various books.
(2) In fact, in the books of scholars regarding cows and buffaloes, numerous words and expressions have been used. For example:
(1) نوع من البقر (2) جنس من البقر (3) صنف من البقر (4) ضرب من البقر (5) ومن البقر الجاموس (6) ومنه الجاموس (7) کالبقر (8) الحق بالبقر
(9) بمنزلة البقر (10) قیاسا على البقر, یا بالقياس على البقر, etc.
But the most frequently used expression is نوع (type), and its synonymous words جنس (genus), صنف (species), ضرب (kind), etc. In contrast, the words الحاق (attachment), بمنزلہ (in the position of), and قیاس (analogy) are rarely used. This indicates that according to the original expression, the buffalo is a type of cow. However, there has been some leniency or difference in expression by those who have used the word “قیاس” (analogy), and this is the reliable point. Accordingly, Allama Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, refuting those who consider the obligation of Zakat on buffaloes based on “قیاس” (analogy) and proving that buffalo is a type of cow, writes:
وهذا شغب فاسد؛ لأن الجواميس نوع من أنواع البقر ، وقد جاء النص بإيجاب الزكاة فى البقر ، والزكاة فى الجواميس لأنها بقر؛ واسم البقر يقع عليها ولولا ذلك ما وجدت فيها زكاة
This is a very bad matter; because buffaloes are one of the types of cows, and there is a text regarding the obligation of Zakat on cows, and Zakat on buffaloes is because they are cows; and the name of cow applies to them. If this were not so, then there would be no Zakat on buffaloes.
Similarly, the Muhaddith of the era, Abdul Qadir Hasari, states:
Counting buffalo as part of Bahimat al-An’am (cattle) is not an analogy; the Quranic text of Bahimat al-An’am is general and includes individuals such as cows, goats, etc., so buffalo is also an individual of Bahimat al-An’am. The sacrifice of Bahimat al-An’am is explicitly stated, so the sacrifice of buffalo is also established by the Quranic text.
And Allah knows best.
