What is the ruling regarding compensating for the killing of game that has no equivalent value in kind (i.e., not readily found)?
Chapter on Ransom (Fidyah) and Penalty for Hunting
Al-Mughni
Book of Hajj
Primary text
The killer of game without an equivalent in kind is given the choice between purchasing food with the value of the game and feeding it to the poor, or fasting. This choice is mandatory for the killer. This ruling is supported by narratives concerning Ibn Abbas, where if one cannot afford to feed the poor, one must fast for every half Sa' a day of fasting required. The reasoning for this structure is that since it is a penalty for hunting, replacing it with monetary value (Qimah) is disallowed, similar to game that does have an equivalent in kind. Furthermore, God prescribed three choices, excluding monetary value; thus, if one option is absent, the choice remains between the remaining two options, and imposing something not explicitly mentioned (like monetary value) is not permissible.
Supporting text
The alternative view permits the use of monetary value (Qimah). This is evidenced by the report that Umar (may God be pleased with him) instructed Ka'b to uphold his self-imposed penalty of two dirhams, and by the statement of 'Ata that the penalty for a sparrow is half a dirham, which implies paying a set monetary amount.