Fasting is sufficient in any location, and the blood sacrifice is a sheep or one-seventh of a large camel, and a cow is sufficient in its place.

The Shaykh : He said: "Fasting is sufficient in any location" Why? Because fasting does not benefit anyone, so it is sufficient in any place. However, one must note an issue that may prevent us from fasting in every place: expiations are obligatory immediately, except where the Shari'ah has specified a delay. If it is obligatory immediately and, for example, his travel to his home country is delayed, he must fast in Makkah. Let us take as an example a man who owes the expiation for harm (fidyah al-adhā), which is fasting, charity, or sacrifice, and he chooses fasting. Do we tell him he can delay it until he returns to his country? We say: If you delay it, you are sinful, but it is sufficient. However, hasten, because paying the expiation is obligatory immediately, just like paying zakah. He said: "And the blood sacrifice is a sheep or one-seventh of a large camel, and a cow is sufficient in its place" He says the blood sacrifice is a sheep, meaning if the term "blood" is used generally and you find the scholars' words on it, it means one of three things: either a sheep. When "sheep" is used generally in the language of jurists, it refers to both male and female, from the male goat (the male is a sheep), the lamb (a sheep), the female sheep (a sheep), and the female goat (a sheep). This is the general usage of the sheep in the jurists' language. Now, "or one-seventh of a large camel" means one of the seven shares of a large camel, on the condition that he intends it before slaughtering it. If he comes to a slaughtered large camel and buys one-seventh of it and intends it for the sheep, it is not sufficient, because it has now become meat. In the case of blood money (diyah), it must be slaughtered with the intention of the expiation. And the author's statement: "one-seventh of a large camel", its apparent meaning is that it is sufficient even if his partner wants the meat, and indeed it is sufficient even if his partner wants the meat. So if a person agrees with a butcher to buy one-seventh of a camel that the butcher intends to slaughter, and the buyer intends that one-seventh for the obligatory sheep in the expiation for harm, is it sufficient or not? It is sufficient. Now he said: "or one-seventh of a large camel, and a cow is sufficient in its place" A cow is sufficient in place of the large camel. So what is a large camel? The large camel is the camel. Allah the Exalted said: And this does not apply except to camels. A cow is sufficient in place of the large camel, so one-seventh of a large camel and a cow are equal. Even though if you look at the size of the body and the abundance of meat, you would see that the large camel is larger and more beneficial. But these are matters of worship (ta'abbudi), and one does not refer to the value among people in them, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: And a cow is sufficient in its place. Its apparent meaning is that this applies even in the expiation for hunting. So if someone kills a pigeon, the obligation upon him is a sheep. Is it permissible to make one-seventh of a large camel or a cow in place of the sheep? The apparent meaning of the author's statement is permissibility, but the correct view is that it is not permissible in the expiation for hunting. The reason is that the expiation for hunting requires similarity, and one-seventh of a large camel does not resemble a pigeon, so it is not sufficient for it. Therefore, the correct view is that one-seventh of a large camel or a cow is not sufficient in the expiation for hunting, because Allah required similarity in it. He said: And let it be known that one-seventh of a large camel or a cow is sufficient for what a sheep is sufficient for. Accordingly, if a person sacrifices it for himself and his family, it is sufficient, contrary to what some students of knowledge understood, that one-seventh of a large camel is not shared and is only sufficient for one person. This is a misconception and not a correct understanding, neither from what came in the Sunnah nor from what came in the words of the scholars. Sharing in the reward has no limit, and it is the ownership (mulk) that is limited. How many shares of ownership are there in a large camel or a cow? Seven. So ownership and sufficiency: a sheep is not sufficient except for one person, and one-seventh of a large camel is not sufficient except for one person. A large camel or a cow is not sufficient except for seven. As for the reward, share it with whom you wish. That is why the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to sacrifice with a single sheep for himself and his family. How many women were with him? Nine, and he was the tenth. This is if the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not include even the relatives, in which case there would be no limit. But the condition of ownership and sufficiency: how did he make the sheep? For one person. One-seventh of a large camel for one person, and the cow for seven, and the large camel for seven. So there is a difference between ownership and sufficiency, and between the reward. If a person buys or participates in a camel in one-seventh and says, "O Allah, this is for me and my family," then it is sufficient for him, even if his family is one hundred people.