Is the compensation (*Jazaa'*) obligatory if a pilgrim kills game that was otherwise permissible to kill?
Chapter on Ransom (Fidyah) and Penalty for Hunting
Al-Mughni
Book of Hajj
Primary text
Killing game is categorized into prohibited and permissible acts. Prohibited killing is the initial act without a permissible reason, for which compensation is obligatory. Permissible killing falls into three types. The first type is when a pilgrim is compelled by necessity (starvation) to eat the game; in this case, killing is permitted without dispute, supported by the Quranic injunction: "And do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction" (Quran 2:195). The pilgrim is liable for compensation whether or not other food was available. The second type is when game attacks a pilgrim, and he can only repel the aggression by killing it; in this case, there is no liability. The third type is when a pilgrim saves game from a predator or a hunter's net, or removes something stuck to its limb, and the animal perishes as a result; there is no liability in this instance.
Supporting text
Regarding the necessity-driven killing for consumption (first type), Al-Awza'i stated that no compensation is due because the killing is permissible, akin to killing sea creatures. Regarding repelling an aggressor (second type), Abu Bakr and Abu Hanifa held that compensation is due because the killing was done for the pilgrim's need, similar to the need for food. Regarding saving the animal (third type), some scholars argue that compensation is due based on the general application of the verse, viewing it as akin to accidental killing since intent to kill was absent.