Al-Ma'idah: (95) "O you who have believed, do not kill game while you are in the state of ihram..."

The explicit prohibition, despite it being known—especially from His saying: "without being permitted to hunt while you are in the state of ihram"—is to emphasize the sanctity and to establish the consequences that follow it. The definite article (al-) in "al-sayd" (the game) is for designation based on the aforementioned. Its application to non-edible animals is widespread; the Imamiyyah went towards generalization, citing the lines attributed to Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance: "The game of kings are foxes and rabbits, but when I ride, my game are the champions." The Shafi'is specified it to edible animals, stating: because that is the prevailing custom. They supported this with what was narrated by the two Shaykhs: "Five [creatures] are to be killed in the state of being outside the sacred territory and within it: the kite, the crow, the scorpion, the mouse, and the vicious dog." In a narration by Muslim, the snake is mentioned instead of the scorpion. The completion of this discussion will come, if Allah wills.

"Al-hurum" is the plural of "haram," like "rudah" is the plural of "radah." "Al-haram" and "al-muhrim" have the same meaning, and what is intended by it is one who has entered the state of ihram for Hajj or 'Umrah, even if he is outside the sacred territory. In the same ruling is one who is within the sacred territory, even if he is not in ihram. It is said: The intended meaning is one who is within the sacred territory, even if he is not in the state of ihram for a ritual, and in the same ruling is the muhrim, even if he is outside the sacred territory. Ali ibn al-Jubba'i said: The verse indicates the prohibition of killing game for the one in ihram for a ritual, wherever he may be, and for the one in the sacred territory, whoever he may be. Ali ibn 'Isa said: The verse does not indicate the prohibition of that for the former specifically. Perhaps the truth is with Ali, not his father.

Killing is mentioned rather than slaughtering or the like, to signal that game, even if slaughtered, is in the status of carrion. To this went the Greatest Imam [Abu Hanifah], Ahmad, and Malik—may Allah be pleased with them—and it is the new opinion of Al-Shafi'i—may Allah be pleased with him. According to the old opinion, it is not in the status of carrion, and it is permissible to eat it for others, but it is forbidden for the muhrim. "And whoever kills it [as being] among you, [while being] intentionally" means: mindful of his ihram, and knowing the prohibition of killing what he kills. The same applies to one who kills it by mistake, based on the Sunnah. Ibn Jarir narrated from Al-Zuhri, who said: "The Quran was revealed regarding intentional killing, and the Sunnah established the rule for mistakes." Al-Shafi'i and Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from 'Amr ibn Dinar, who said: "I saw all the people imposing compensation in the case of a mistake." Some said: It is restricted to the intentional [act] because it is the primary case, and the mistake is appended to it by analogy. This was objected to on the grounds that analogy regarding expiations is disputed, and the Hanafis do not uphold it. It is said: It is restricted to the intentional because that was the occasion for the revelation; it is narrated that a wild donkey appeared to them, and Abu al-Yusr attacked it with his spear and killed it. It was said to him: "You killed it while you were in ihram." He went to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him about that, so Allah (the Exalted) revealed the verse. It was objected that the report, assuming it is authentic, only indicates that the killing by Abu al-Yusr was intentional, and that is not "intentional" in the previous sense, since that required knowledge of the prohibition, and Abu al-Yusr's action was devoid of that by the testimony of the report, as it also indicates that the prohibition of killing game for the muhrim was known after the revelation of the verse. The response is that we do not concede that Abu al-Yusr was unaware of the prohibition at that time; it is narrated from Jabir ibn 'Abdullah and Ibn 'Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them—that hunting was forbidden in the Age of Ignorance, where they would beat severely anyone who killed game. What is known from the verse is that this is from our Sharia. It is said: Knowledge of the prohibition came in His saying: "without being permitted to hunt." This is perhaps more appropriate.

From Dawud it is narrated that there is nothing required in a mistake, taking the literal meaning of the verse. Ibn al-Mundhir narrated this from Ibn 'Abbas—may Allah be pleased with him—Ibn Jarir, and Tawus. Abu al-Shaykh narrated from Ibn Sirin who said: "Whoever kills it forgetting his ihram, he must pay the compensation; and whoever kills it intentionally, not forgetting his ihram, that is left to Allah: if He wills, He punishes him, and if He wills, He forgives him." Ibn Jarir narrated something similar from Al-Hasan and Mujahid.

"Man" (whoever) can be conditional, which is the apparent meaning, and it can be relative (mousula). The "fa" in His saying: "Fa-jaza'un mithlu ma qatala" (then [there is] compensation [equal to] what he killed) is a consequential particle in the first case, and redundant [in the second] due to the similarity of the subject to the second condition. "Jaza'un," in the nominative with tanwin, is the subject, and "mithlun" is nominative as its adjective, and the predicate is omitted, i.e., "upon him is [compensation]." It is permitted that it be the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., "his obligation is compensation equivalent to what he killed." Abu al-Baqa' permitted that "mithlun" be a substitute, and Al-Zajjaj that "jaza'un" be the subject and "mithlun" its predicate, as the meaning is: the compensation for that act, or the killed [animal], is equivalent to what he killed. The Kufans and Ya'qub read it thus. The rest of the seven read it with "jaza'un" in the nominative, genitive by annexation to "mithlun."

This was problematized by Al-Wahidi; rather, he said: "It should not be permitted, because the required compensation is for the killed animal, not for its equivalent." It is not hidden that this is a challenge to what is transmitted through mutawatir channels from the Prophet (peace be upon him), and that is the extreme of ugliness. What was mentioned is answered: Firstly, "jaza'un" is a verbal noun annexed to its second object, i.e., "upon him is to compensate [with] the equivalent of what he killed," and the first object is omitted. The meaning is: "upon him is to compensate the killed game with its equivalent," then the first object was omitted due to the context, and the verbal noun was annexed to the second. It may be said there is no need for this effort if it is made a verbal noun annexed to its object without estimating another object, based on the fact that the meaning of "to compensate [with] the equivalent" is to give the equivalent as compensation. Secondly, the annexation is explanatory, i.e., compensation that is the equivalent of what he killed. Thirdly, that "mithlun" is emphatic (muqhamah), as in their saying: "The likes of you do not do such." This was objected to on the grounds that it misses the requirement of equivalence between the compensation and the killed animal, and that its decreed compensation must resist and balance it, which entails equivalence—a point that is hardly understood from this sentence, as is not hidden. Muhammad ibn Muqatil read it with tanwin on "jaza'un" and its accusative, and the accusative of "mithlun," i.e., "then let him compensate [with] compensation equivalent to what he killed." Al-Sulami read it with the nominative "jaza'un" with tanwin, and the accusative "mithlun"; the nominative of "jaza'un" is obvious, and the accusative of "mithlun" is by "jaza'un" or an omitted verb indicated by "jaza'un," i.e., "he extracts or renders [an] equivalent." Abdullah read "fa-jaza'uhu" (its compensation) with the nominative "jaza'u" annexed to the pronoun, and the nominative "mithlun" as the subject/predicate.

The intended meaning, according to the Greatest Imam and Abu Yusuf, is the equivalent by value. The game is valued—in terms of it being game, not regarding any additional value from craftsmanship—in the place where he killed it, if there is no sacred territory there, or in the nearest places where it is bought and sold. Likewise, the time in which he killed it is considered, due to the difference in values by difference in places and times. If its value reaches the value of a sacrificial animal (hady), the offender is given the choice between buying with that value what is equivalent to the game's value in the sacred territory and sacrificing it, or buying food and giving every poor person half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of other items. It is not permissible to feed a poor person half a sa' [of other food], and he must complete it accordingly, and the remainder counts as voluntary. Or he may fast for every poor person one day. If what remains does not reach the food for a poor person, he gives it as charity or fasts for it a full day, because fasting for less than a day is not known in the Sharia. If its value does not reach the value of a sacrificial animal, but reaches what he can buy food for one poor person with, he is given the choice between feeding and fasting. If it does not reach except what he can buy a mudd of wheat with, for example, he is given the choice between feeding that amount or fasting a full day, for the reason we mentioned. Thus, His saying: "min an-na'am" (from the livestock) is an interpretation of the sacrificial animal bought with the value, according to one of the choices, for whoever does that fulfills being compensated with the equivalent of what he killed from the livestock.

The author of Al-Taqrib viewed this skeptically because the reading of the nominative of "jaza'un" and "mithlun" necessitates that the compensation be equivalent to the game from the livestock. If the compensation is the value, it is not equivalent to it from the livestock; rather, the compensation is the value bought with which the equivalent is acquired. Al-Kashf answered that what is bought with the compensation is also compensation; the food of the poor is compensation by consensus, and it is bought with the value. In sum, it is correct to say it is compensation and that it was bought with the compensation, and there is no contradiction between them. The author of Al-Hidayah claimed that "min an-na'am" explains what was killed, and that the meaning of the verse is that the compensation is the value of what was killed from the livestock, meaning the value, and carrying "na'am" to mean wild livestock, because compensation is only required by its killing, not by killing domestic animals. It has been proven, as Abu 'Ubaydah and Al-Asma'i said, that "na'am" is applied to wild animals just as it is applied to domestic ones in the language. The words of Abu al-Baqa', where he said: "It is permitted for 'min an-na'am' to be a state (hal) from the pronoun in 'qatala' (killed), because the killed animal may be from the livestock," is built upon this. While far-fetched from the noble structure, it is contrary to what is immediately understood; the famous view is that "na'am" in the language is camels, cows, and sheep, not what was mentioned. Al-Zajjaj stipulated this, noting that if the camel is singled out, it is also called "na'am," but cows and sheep, if singled out, are not called "na'am."

Muhammad and those who follow Al-Shafi'i, Malik, and the Imamiyyah said: The intended meaning of the "equivalent" and "likeness" is by appearance, in that there is a likeness in it, not in value. So for the gazelle, there is a sheep; for the hyena, a sheep; for the rabbit, a kid; for the jerboa, a young one; for the ostrich, a camel; and for the wild donkey, a cow. Because Allah (the Exalted) obligated an equivalent of the killed animal, restricted to "livestock." Whoever considers the value has contradicted the text because [value] is not livestock. Furthermore, the Companions, such as Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—'Umar, 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and others—may Allah be pleased with them all—obligated a camel for an ostrich and a cow for a wild donkey, and so on. It came from the Prophet (peace be upon him), as narrated by Abu Dawud: "The hyena is game, and for it, there is a sheep." Regarding what has no likeness in terms of physical creation, such as the sparrow and the pigeon, the value is required according to Muhammad, as it is with the Greatest Imam and his companion. From Al-Shafi'i—may Allah be pleased with him—it is held that he considers equivalence in terms of attributes, so he obligated a sheep for the pigeon due to the similarity between them in that each of them coos and mourns. This was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas, Ibn 'Umar, and Muqatil—may Allah be pleased with them. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from 'Ata' that the first to offer a sheep as a ransom for a bird of the sanctuary was 'Uthman—may Allah be pleased with him.

For Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf—may Allah be pleased with them—Allah (the Exalted) used "the equivalent" absolutely, and the absolute equivalent is the equivalent in form and meaning, which is the sharer in species. This is not intended here by consensus, so it remains that the equivalent in meaning is intended, which is the value. This is because the established norm in Sharia in the use of the word "equivalent" is to intend the sharer in species or value. Allah (the Exalted) said regarding the penalty of aggression: "So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you." The intended meaning is the broader of the two, i.e., the equivalent in species if the destroyed object is of the species type, and the value if it is of the value type, based on it being a conceptual homonym. Animals are of the value types in Sharia, discarding the equivalence that exists in the complete form in them, prioritizing the internal difference in individuals of a single species. So what do you think when sharing in species is also absent? Nothing remains except resemblance in some of the form, like the length of the neck and legs in the ostrich with the camel, and similar things in others. If the Sharia rules for the absence of considering equivalence despite resemblance in the complete form, and does not hold the destroyer liable with what shared in the complete species, but rather with the "equivalent in meaning," then when those are absent, and resemblance is only in some aspects, the absence of consideration is more apparent. Unless it is impossible, meaning the word has a load that could bear otherwise. Therefore, if a meaning for a word is known in the Sharia and it is hesitant in a place where it is valid to apply that known meaning and another, it must be applied to the known one. What we are in is like that, so it is necessary to turn to it, and that what came from the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his noble Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—of ruling by the likeness should be taken as having been in consideration of the estimation by value. However, because the people at that time were livestock owners, payment from it was easier for them, not with the meaning that nothing else would suffice. The hadith regarding restriction to "livestock," you have already known the answer to it.

Our master Shaykh al-Islam mentioned that the primary obligation for the offense and the compensation equivalent to what was killed is its value, but not by considering that the offender intends it and spends it on the expenditures initially; rather, by considering that it is made a standard, by which one of the three options is estimated, placing it in its stead. So His saying: "the equivalent of what he killed" is a necessary descriptor for the compensation, never separating from it in any situation. As for His saying: "from the livestock," it is a descriptor for it considered in the secondary situation, based on its first description, which is the standard for it, and for what is after it of food and fasting. So it is their right to be coordinated to the separable descriptor, not the necessary one, let alone being coordinated to the described, as will come, if Allah wills.

Among what guides to the fact that the intended meaning of "equivalent" is the value is His saying (the Almighty): "judged by it [the equivalent of what he killed] two just men from among you," meaning two just judges from the Muslims, because evaluation is what needs reflection and exertion, not the equivalence in form, which everyone among the people is equal in knowing. This is apparent against the literalism of Muhammad's statement.

It may be said: This sentence also guides to what we said, according to the opinion of those who make the basis of equivalence between the game and the livestock the resemblance and analogy in some attributes and forms, with the existence of contrast between them in the rest of the circumstances. For that is something that none of the pillars of the Imams of Ijtihad and the chiefs of the people of guidance and rectitude could be guided to, except those supported by holy power. Does one not see that Imam Al-Shafi'i—may Allah be pleased with him—and those we mentioned earlier obligated a sheep for killing a pigeon based on the equivalence proven between them in cooing and mourning? Despite the ratio between them from all other perspectives being like that between the lizard and the fish—nay, even the fish and the star! So how would the knowledge of these difficult minutiae be delegated to the opinion of two just men from the common people? Moreover, the ruling with this meaning only relates to species, not individuals; so after each species of game is assigned a type of livestock, the ruling is completed, and when specific incidents occur, there is no need for a ruling at all.

Muhammad ibn Ja'far read "dhu 'adl" (possessor of justice); Ibn Jinni explained it as intending the Imam. It is said that "dhu" is used in two ways, for the small and the large, and it is not intended here for singularity, but for plurality, and two are intended from it, because it is its least rank. In Al-Hidayah, they said: A single just person suffices, and two are better because it is more cautious and further from error. On this, there is no need to carry "dhu" on the plural nor on the Imam; rather, the intent is the individual, whether an Imam or other than him. Whoever stipulated two, carried the number in the verse on the mutawatir reading as a priority. The sentence is an adjective for "compensation" or a state from the hidden pronoun in its estimated predicate. It is said: a state from it, to specify it by the adjective. Ibn al-Humam permitted, on the reading of the nominative of "jaza'un" and its annexation, that it be an adjective for "equivalent," just as it is an adjective for "compensation," because "equivalent" is defined by annexation, so it is permissible to describe it and describe what it is annexed to with the sentence.

His saying: "hadyan" (as a sacrificial animal) is a state [representing] a future possibility from the pronoun in "bihi" (by it), as Al-Farisi said, or from "jaza'un," based on it being a predicate, or from it on the estimation of it being a subject in an opinion, or a substitute for "equivalent" in one who put it in the accusative, or from its place in one who put it in the genitive, or it is in the accusative as a verbal noun, i.e., "he sacrifices [it] as a sacrificial animal." The sentence is another adjective for "compensation." "Baligha al-ka'bah" (reaching the Ka'bah) is an adjective for "hadyan" because its annexation is grammatical. "Aw kaffaratan" (or an expiation) is coordinated to the place of "from the livestock," on the basis that it is the predicate of an omitted subject, and the sentence is an adjective for "compensation" according to what Shaykh al-Islam chose. His saying: "ta'am masakin" (food for poor people) is an explanatory conjunction for "expiation" according to those who see it as such, like Al-Farisi in indefinite nouns, or it is a substitute for it, or the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., "it is food for poor people."

His saying: "aw 'adlu dhalika siyaman" (or the equivalent of that in fasting) is coordinated to "ta'am," and "dhalika" is a reference to it, and "siyaman" is a specification. The essence of the verse, as if it were said: "Upon him is compensation," or "the obligation is compensation equivalent to what he killed, which is from the livestock, or food for poor people, or fasting equal to them." Then the equivalence is a necessary description of the compensation, by which the sacrifice, the food, and the fasting are estimated. As for the first two, without an intermediary; as for the third, by the intermediary of the second. The offender chooses each of them as a substitute for the others. That the choice is for the offender is what Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf—may Allah be pleased with them—went to. According to them, if the value of the game is determined by the two just men, and it reaches a sacrificial animal, he has the choice of making it a sacrifice, food, or fasting, because the choice was legislated to be kind to the one upon whom it falls, so the choice is his, to be treated kindly by what he chooses, as in the expiation for an oath. Muhammad said—and our companions attributed it to Al-Shafi'i—may Allah be pleased with him—also: The choice is for the two judges in designating one of the things. If they rule for the sacrifice, the equivalent is required as passed; if they rule for food or fasting, it is according to what the Imam and his companion said regarding the consideration of value in terms of meaning.

It was reasoned as stated regarding this by the verse; the aspect of it is that he mentioned "hadyan" (a sacrifice) in the accusative as an interpretation of the ambiguous pronoun returning to "equivalent" in His saying: "judged by it [the equivalent] two just men," whether it was a state from it as we previously stated, or a specification as was said. Thus, it is proven that the equivalent only becomes a sacrifice by their choice and judgment. Or, it is an object for the judgment of the judge, on the basis that it is a substitute for the pronoun, carried on its place, as in His saying: "Say, 'Indeed, my Lord has guided me to a straight path—a correct religion.'" In that, there is a clear statement that the designation is for the two judges. Then, since that is proven in the sacrifice, it is proven in food and fasting, because there is no one who says there is a separation. This is because He (the Exalted) coordinated them to it with the word "or," which is—according to those other than Al-Sha'bi, Al-Suddi, and Ibn 'Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them, in one narration—the choice. Thus, the choice is for the two [judges]. Many of our companions answered that: The reasoning is only valid if "expiation" were coordinated to "a sacrifice," and it is not so, due to the difference in their grammatical cases. It is only coordinated to His saying: "then compensation," with the evidence that it is in the nominative, and likewise His saying: "or the equivalent" etc. So there is no indication in the verse for a choice for the two judges in food and fasting. And if the choice is not proven for the two judges in them, it is not proven in the sacrifice, due to the absence of anyone who says there is a separation. Rather, they are referred to them in the valuation of the destroyed object, nothing else. Then the choice after that is for the one upon whom the duty falls, for his comfort. Moreover, in directing the reasoning to what Akmal al-Din said in Al-'Inayah, there is a problem because mentioning food and fasting with the word "or" does not yield the required result unless "expiation" is in the accusative, which is the reading of 'Isa ibn 'Umar al-Nahwi, and it is irregular (shadhah). Al-Shafi'i does not see reasoning by an irregular reading as valid, neither in the sense that it is a book nor that it is a report, as is known in the principles.

Our master Shaykh al-Islam objected to coordinating "expiation" to "compensation"—which the elite commentators and jurists went to—that there would remain in the noble structure nothing by which to estimate food and fasting, and resorting to analogy with the sacrifice is forced, as is not hidden. You have known what he chose, and the verse according to him is not fit as evidence for the opponent's claim, as is apparent. Moreover, the apparent [meaning] of it, as Ibn al-Humam said, is that the choice is for the one upon whom it falls; the reference of the pronoun in the omitted predicate or the object of the subject returns to him, based on the estimation "upon him is" or "the obligation upon him is." Then, if the choice falls on the sacrifice, what suffices in the udhiyah (sacrifice) suffices, which is the large lamb or the thani (sheep in its second year) of others, according to Abu Hanifah, because the absolute name of the hady (sacrifice) defaults to it, as in the hady of tamattu' and qiran. He was objected to on the grounds that the name hady might default to other than it, as if he said: "If I do such and such, this garment of mine is a hady." Let it be in the place of dispute as well. It was answered that the discourse is in the absolute hady, and what was mentioned is not like that because the reference to the garment restricted it. According to Mahmud, small livestock suffice, because the Companions, as mentioned, obligated a kid and a young one, which indicates the permissibility of that in the chapter of hady. From Abu Yusuf, there are two narrations: one like the Imam's statement, and another like Muhammad's statement, which is the one in Al-Mabsut, Al-Asrar, and others. According to Abu Hanifah, small ones are permissible in the way of feeding, so it is possible that the ruling of the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—was on this consideration; their act alone does not contradict what the Imam went to, so it does not rise to the status of an argument against him.

If he chooses the sacrifice and it reaches the age for sacrifice, he does not slaughter it except in the sacred territory; this is what is intended by His saying: "a sacrificial animal reaching the Ka'bah." The mention of the Ka'bah is for glorification. If he slaughters it outside the sacred territory, it does not suffice for the sacrifice, but rather for feeding; it is required that he gives every poor person the value of half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of others. It is permissible to give the sheep that occurs as a sacrifice to one poor person, as in the hady of tamattu'. Nothing of the compensation is given as charity to one whose testimony is not accepted for him, and it is permissible for the dhimmis, and the Muslim is more beloved. If he ate from the compensation, he pays the value of what he ate. It is not required for feeding that it be in the sacred territory.

They narrated from Al-Shafi'i that he stipulates that, considering it a hady, and the connector is the easing for the inhabitants of the sacred territory. We say: The hady is an act of worship not intellectually grasped, so it is restricted to a place or time. As for charity, it is an act of worship intellectually grasped in every time and place, like fasting, for it is permissible outside the sacred territory by consensus. If he slaughters in Kufa, for example, it suffices for the feeding if he gives the meat as charity, and it fulfills the value of the food, for the shedding of blood does not substitute for it. If this slaughtered animal was stolen or lost before giving it as charity, the duty remains upon him as it was. This is contrary to if the slaughter was in the sacred territory, where he is cleared of the obligation even if the slaughtered animal was stolen or lost before giving it as charity. If the choice falls on food, the destroyed object is valued, then food is bought with the value and given as charity, as we hinted at first. In Al-Hidayah, the destroyed object is valued by food according to us, because it is the guaranteed object, so its value is considered.

Humayd al-Din al-Darir narrated from Muhammad that he values the likeness, because it is the specific duty if the killed animal has a likeness. You know that if it were conceded that the likeness is the specific duty upon choosing the sacrifice, it would not necessarily follow that it must be considered when choosing another option. How [could it], when it is denied? If he chooses fasting, then according to what is in Al-Hidayah, he values the killed animal as food, then fasts for the food of every poor person one day, as passed, because estimating fasting by the killed animal is not possible, as there is no value for fasting, so we estimated it by food. This estimation is known in the Sharia, as in the expiation. The completion of the discussion on the branches, the expiation, and the food in the verse, as the words of some commentators suggest, is in the sense of the verbal noun. If they were kept to the apparent [meaning], this would be correct. What we mentioned of coordinating "expiation" is only on the reading of "jaza'un" with the nominative, and on all other readings, it is the predicate of an omitted subject, and the sentence is coordinated to the sentence of "min an-na'am."

Al-Shihab mentioned that it is permitted in "kaffaratan" (expiation) on the reading of "jaza'un" with the accusative that it be the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., "the obligation upon him is an expiation," and to estimate there a verb, i.e., "that he compensates [with] compensation." So "or expiation" is coordinated to "that he compensates," and it is a subject preceded by it, its predicate omitted. It was read "or an expiation [of] food [for] poor people" by annexation to explain the type of expiation, based on it being in the meaning of the means of expiation, and it is general, including food and other things. Likewise, the food would be an expiation and other things, so between the two annexed [terms] there is generality and specificity from an aspect, like "a ring [of] iron." Abu Hayyan said: The food is not a genus for the expiation except by very far-fetched metaphor, so the annexation is only an annexation of association, and it is nothing.

Al-A'raj read "or an expiation [of] food [for] poor people" on the basis that the explanation is achieved by the singular indicating the genus. It was read "or 'adl" (equivalent) with the kasrah on the 'ayn. The difference between them is that the 'adl (equivalent) of a thing, as Al-Farra' said, is what balances it from other than its genus, like fasting and feeding. Its 'idl is what it is balanced with in amount; as if the one with the fatha is naming by the verbal noun, and the one with the kasrah is in the meaning of the passive object. The Basrans said: 'Adl and 'idl are both in the meaning of equivalent, whether it is from the genus or other than it. Al-Raghib said: 'Adl and 'idl are close, but it is with the fatha in what is perceived by insight, like rulings, and with the kasrah in what is perceived by the senses, like the equivalent. "Al-'adl" (with the fatha) is distribution equally. On this it is narrated: "By al-'adl the heavens were established," a warning that if one of the four pillars in the world were more or less than the other contrary to what wisdom requires, the world would not be ordered.

"Li-yadhuga wabala amrihi" (that he may taste the consequence of his affair) is related to the established [predicate] that the estimated [word] related to. It is said: it relates to "compensation," and it is said: to "fasting" or "food," and it is said: to an estimated verb, i.e., "he was compensated" or "we legislated that" and the like. "Al-wabal" in origin is weight; from it is "wabil" (downpour) for heavy rain, "wabil" (heavy) for food that is not quickly digested, "al-mar'a al-wakhim" (the unwholesome pasture), and the wood of the fuller. The pronoun "amrihi" is either for Allah (the Exalted) or for the one who killed the game, i.e., that he may taste the weight of his act and the evil consequence of violating the sanctity of what he is in, or the severe weight of opposing the command of Allah the Powerful. On this, one must estimate an annexed noun as we indicated, because there is no weight in the command of Allah (the Exalted); the weight is only in opposing it.

"Allah has pardoned what is past" for you regarding hunting while you were in ihram, so He did not place sin in it and did not obligate compensation, or did not take you to task for what was from you in the Age of Ignorance regarding that, despite it being a grave sin as well, as you were on the Sharia of Ishmael (peace be upon him), and hunting was forbidden in it. The narration of the prohibition in the Age of Ignorance and the taking to task for killing game by severe beating has passed. "And whoever returns" to the like of that, and kills game intentionally while he is in ihram, "then Allah will take retribution from him," i.e., for he will be taken retribution from by Allah (the Exalted), because when the consequence occurs in the present tense, positive, the "fa" does not enter it due to the similarity of the subject to the condition, and it is redundant, and the sentence after it is the predicate, so there is no need then to hide the subject. The intended meaning of retribution is punishment in the Hereafter. As for the expiation, 'Ata', Ibrahim, Ibn Jubayr, Al-Hasan, and the majority say it is obligatory upon the returner, so the compensation repeats according to them by the repetition of the killing.

It is narrated from Ibn 'Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them—and Shurayh that if he returned, he would not be judged with an expiation, to the point that they used to ask the inquirer: "Has anything happened before it?" If he said: "Yes," he would not judge him, and if he said "No," he would judge him, clinging to the apparent [meaning] of the verse. You know that the threat of the returner does not contradict the obligation of compensation upon him; it was only not explicitly mentioned because of its knowledge in what passed. It is said: The meaning of the verse is "whoever returns after the prohibition to what was before it," and this is not far-fetched. As for carrying the retribution on retribution in this world by expiation, although it is possible, it is contrary to the apparent. Likewise, that the intended meaning is "he will be taken retribution from if he does not expiate." They disagreed regarding if a muhrim is forced to eat carrion or game. Zafar said: He eats the carrion, not the game, due to the multiplicity of aspects of its prohibition upon him. Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf said: He eats the game and pays the compensation, because the prohibition of carrion is stricter; do you not see that the prohibition of game is lifted by exiting ihram, so it is temporary, contrary to the prohibition of carrion. So he must intend the lighter of the two prohibitions, not the stricter. The game, even if it is a forbidden thing of ihram, at the time of necessity, the prohibition is lifted, so he kills it and eats from it and pays the compensation, as in Al-Mabsut.

In Al-Khaniyah, the muhrim, if forced to carrion and game, the carrion is more appropriate according to Abu Hanifah and Muhammad. Abu Yusuf and Al-Hasan said: He slaughters the game. If the game was already slaughtered, the game is more appropriate according to all. If he found game meat and human meat, the game meat is more appropriate. If he found game and a dog, the dog is more appropriate because in the game there is the commission of two prohibitions. From Muhammad: The game is more appropriate than pork meat. [The discussion] ended. In this is a contradiction to what was mentioned in Al-Mabsut. "And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Powerful [the] All-Overpowering," "All-Severe in retribution," so He takes retribution from whoever exceeds His limits, opposes His commands, and persists in His disobedience.