**"O you who have believed..."**
"Muḥrimūn" (those in the state of iḥrām): This is the plural of ḥarām, like radḥ is the plural of radāḥ.
Intentionality: The verse specifies intentional killing (taʿammud) while the person is mindful of their iḥrām or aware that what they are killing is forbidden to them. If one kills it while forgetful of their iḥrām, or shoots at something thinking it is not game only to find it is, or aims at something else and the arrow veers to strike game, they are considered mistaken (mukhṭiʾ).
If you ask: "The prohibitions of iḥrām apply equally to intentional acts and mistakes, so why is intentionality a condition in this verse?"
I reply: The context of the verse concerns those who kill intentionally. It is narrated that during the ʿUmrah of al-Ḥudaybiyyah, a wild donkey appeared, and Abū al-Yusr attacked it with his spear and killed it. He was told, "You have killed game while in iḥrām," and thus this verse was revealed. Furthermore, the primary ruling applies to intentional acts, and mistakes are attached to it for the sake of severity. This is supported by the words: "That he may taste the consequence of his affair" and "Whoever returns, Allah will take retribution from him." Al-Zuhrī stated: "The Book was revealed regarding intentional acts, and the Sunnah addressed mistakes." Saʿīd ibn Jubayr held that there is no penalty for mistakes, adhering to the condition of intentionality in the verse. There are two narrations from al-Ḥasan on this.
**"Then a penalty equivalent to what he killed"**
* **"Jazāʾun mithlu" (a penalty equivalent):** Both are in the nominative case (*rafʿ*), meaning: "Upon him is a penalty that equates to what he killed of the game."
* **According to Abū Ḥanīfah:** This refers to the value of the game, appraised where it was killed. If its value reaches the price of a sacrificial animal (*hady*), one has the choice: either sacrifice an animal of that value, or buy food with that value and give each poor person half a *ṣāʿ* of wheat or a *ṣāʿ* of other grains. Alternatively, one may fast one day for each poor person’s portion. If a remainder exists that is less than a poor person's portion, one fasts for it or gives it as charity.
* **According to Muḥammad and al-Shāfiʿī:** One must provide a similar animal (*naẓīr*). If no similar animal exists, one reverts to the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah.
If you ask: "How do those who interpret 'the equivalent' as 'value' reconcile this with the phrase 'from the livestock' and *'a sacrificial animal reaching the Kaʿbah'?"
I reply: Those who mandate the value allow the person to choose between buying a sacrifice, feeding the poor, or fasting, just as Allah gave the choice in the verse. Thus, the phrase "from the livestock" clarifies the sacrifice purchased with the value. Moreover, the choice provided in the verse—between a sacrifice, feeding, or fasting—is only logically consistent if the game is appraised first. If one were forced to provide a "similar animal" without appraisal, it would contradict the verse’s structure, which explicitly offers three choices (sacrifice, food, or fasting), which is only possible through appraisal.
**Grammatical Notes**
* **Readings:** ʿAbd Allāh read *jazāʾuhu mithlu mā qatala*. Others read it as an annexation (*iḍāfah*).
* **"Min al-naʿam" (from the livestock):** Al-Ḥasan read it with a quiescent *ʿayn* to avoid the difficulty of moving the throat letter.
* **"Yaḥkumu bihi" (judged by):** Refers to the equivalent of what was killed.
* **"Dhawā ʿadlin minkum" (two just men from among you):** This proves that the "equivalent" refers to value, as appraisal requires judgment and *ijtihād*, unlike observable things.
* **The Story of Qabīṣah:** Qabīṣah killed a gazelle while in *iḥrām* and asked ʿUmar. ʿUmar consulted ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf and ordered a sheep to be slaughtered. Qabīṣah remarked to his companion, "The Commander of the Faithful did not know until he asked someone else." ʿUmar heard this and struck him with his whip, saying, "You belittle the *fatwā* while you kill game in *iḥrām*? Allah said: *'Two just men from among you shall judge it,'* and I am ʿUmar, and this is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān."
**"A sacrificial animal reaching the Kaʿbah"**
* **"Hadyan" (a sacrificial animal):** This is a state (*ḥāl*) describing the penalty.
* **"Baligh al-Kaʿbah":** It is described as "reaching the Kaʿbah" because it must be slaughtered in the Sacred Precinct (*Ḥaram*). As for distributing the meat, Abū Ḥanīfah allows it anywhere, while al-Shāfiʿī restricts it to the *Ḥaram*.
**"Or an expiation: feeding poor people, or the equivalent of that in fasting"**
* **"Kaffāratun" (expiation):** If *jazāʾan* is in the accusative, *kaffāratun* is the predicate of an implied subject (i.e., "the duty upon him is an expiation").
* **"ʿAdl" (equivalent):** *ʿAdl* (with a fatḥah) refers to something of a different genus that balances the weight (like fasting for food). *ʿIdl* (with a kasrah) refers to something of the same genus that balances the amount.
* **"Ṣiyāman" (fasting):** This is a specifier (*tamyīz*) for the "equivalent."
* **The Choice:** According to Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf, the choice lies with the killer of the game. According to Muḥammad, it lies with the two judges.
**"That he may taste the consequence of his affair"**
* **"Li-yadhūqa" (that he may taste):** Relates to "a penalty," meaning he is penalized so he may taste the evil outcome of violating the sanctity of *iḥrām*.
* **"Wabāl" (consequence):** The hateful harm one receives in the end for a bad deed, because it is "heavy" (*wabil*) upon him.
* **"ʿAfā Allāh ʿammā salaf" (Allah has pardoned what is past):** This refers to what you did regarding game before you consulted the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Some say it refers to the pre-Islamic era, as they were bound by previous laws where hunting was forbidden.
* **"Wa-man ʿāda" (and whoever returns):** To killing game while in *iḥrām* after the prohibition was revealed.
* **"Fa-yantaqimu Allāhu minhu" (Allah will take retribution from him):** This is the predicate of an implied subject (i.e., "he is one whom Allah will take retribution from"). Scholars differ on whether the penalty is still required for the repeat offender; most scholars, including ʿAṭāʾ and al-Ḥasan, say it is, while Ibn ʿAbbās and Shurayḥ held that there is no penalty, as it was not mentioned in the text.
