Bab Jinayat al-Muhrim — Exempt Animals, Predators, and Eating Game (Part V)

1. The animal, the action and compensation

The preceding lesson studied the general compensation for game. Al-Quduri now distinguishes specific kinds of animals and conduct.

For each case ask:
1. Which animal category is specified?
2. What exactly did the person in ihram do?
3. Is the stated outcome game compensation, a small charity, or no financial liability?

“No compensation” does not itself imply indiscriminate permission to harm animals.

2. Specific animals excluded from game compensation

وَلَيْسَ فِي قَتْلِ الْغُرَابِ، وَالْحِدَأَةِ، وَالذِّئْبِ، وَالْحَيَّةِ، وَالْعَقْرَبِ، وَالْفَأْرَةِ، وَالْكَلْبِ الْعَقُورِ جَزَاءٌ.
Translation: No hunting compensation is due for killing the listed crow, kite, wolf, snake, scorpion, mouse, or vicious biting dog.

Seven categories are listed. In particular, the dog has the qualification al-kalb al-ʿaqur, a dangerous biting animal; the statement is not a blanket rule about all dogs.

Jaza in this passage is the hunting-related compensation in ihram. The clause should not be expanded into permission for needless injury to animals or exemption from every other obligation.

3. A named exception does not erase the general rule

Named exception: the crow, kite, wolf, snake, scorpion, mouse and vicious dog are specifically addressed as not attracting the game penalty.

General rule: other wild animals require classification and circumstances to determine liability.

The wolf is expressly listed. It is a mistake to infer from its exception that all other predators are necessarily exempt: the next clause treats other predators separately.

4. Mosquitoes, fleas and ticks

وَلَيْسَ فِي قَتْلِ الْبَعُوضِ، وَالْبَرَاغِيثِ، وَالْقُرَادِ شَيْءٌ.
Translation: No liability is due for killing mosquitoes, fleas or ticks.

The three named insects are mosquitoes, fleas and ticks. The source imposes no hunting valuation or offering for killing them.

This must be distinguished from the next clause about lice, where an unspecified charitable payment is mentioned. Different insects should not be silently merged into one rule.

5. No liability versus a charitable payment

Mosquitoes, fleas and ticks: the text negates liability.

Lice and locusts: the next two clauses say to give what one wishes as charity; they do not specify the same substantial penalty as ordinary game.

A quiz or practical example saying merely “an insect” lacks the classification needed to apply the correct clause.

6. Charity for killing a louse

وَمَنْ قَتَلَ قَمْلَةً تَصَدَّقَ بِمَا شَاءَ.
Translation: Whoever kills a louse gives in charity an amount of their choosing.

Qamlah is one louse. Al-Quduri prescribes an unspecified charitable payment, rather than a full game valuation or a sheep offering.

It is inaccurate to read this as the identical “nothing due” rule for mosquitoes, or as an obligatory full-animal offering.

7. Locusts and the date comparison

وَمَنْ قَتَلَ جَرَادَةً تَصَدَّقَ بِمَا شَاءَ، وَتَمْرَةٌ خَيْرٌ مِنْ جَرَادَةٍ.
Translation: Whoever kills a locust gives whatever charity they choose; a date is better than a locust.

Jaradah is one locust and tamrah is one date. The date comparison illustrates the small charitable nature of this clause.

Both this and the louse clause use bima shaʾa, rather than the quantified game penalty previously studied. Do not recast the phrase as compulsory sacrifice of a sheep.

8. Four insect-related situations

Case 1: a mosquito is killed—no compensation.
Case 2: a tick is killed—no compensation.
Case 3: a louse is killed—unspecified charity.
Case 4: a locust is killed—unspecified charity, with the example of a date.

Preserve the specific distinctions rather than supplying one formula for every small creature.

9. Compensation for other non-edible predators

وَمَنْ قَتَلَ مَا لَا يُؤْكَلُ لَحْمُهُ مِنَ الصَّيْدِ، كَالسِّبَاعِ وَنَحْوِهَا، فَعَلَيْهِ الْجَزَاءُ، وَلَا يَتَجَاوَزُ بِقِيمَتِهِ شَاةً.
Translation: Whoever kills protected game whose meat is not eaten, such as predators and the like, owes compensation, but its assessed value does not exceed that of a sheep.

The word al-sibaʿ refers here to other predatory game outside the specific listed exceptions.

The clause has two parts: compensation is due, but the assessed amount is capped at the value of a sheep.

Therefore it is wrong either to exempt every predator automatically or to ignore the ceiling for this category.

10. Understanding the sheep-value ceiling

Illustration only: assume a qualifying predator is valued at 3,000 accounting units and a sheep at 2,000. Under this rule the assessment may not exceed 2,000.

If that animal’s valid assessment is 1,500, the cap does not automatically increase the figure to 2,000.

The numbers are hypothetical; actual compensation requires the proper valuation process.

11. Killing a predator in self-defence

وَإِنْ صَالَ السَّبُعُ عَلَى مُحْرِمٍ فَقَتَلَهُ فَلَا شَيْءَ عَلَيْهِ.
Translation: If a predator attacks a person in ihram and the person kills it, no compensation is due.

The verb sala means that the animal attacked. This is a specific defensive case, not merely seeing a predator nearby.

The preceding clause can impose capped compensation for other predators; this attack clause removes the liability for the stated defensive killing. The factual context determines which rule applies.

12. Attack versus non-defensive killing

Case A: A predator that is not one of the named exceptions is killed without attacking. The general compensation rule for that category must be considered.

Case B: A predator attacks someone in ihram and is killed in the stated act of defence. No compensation is due under the cited clause.

Both the animal’s category and the fact of attack matter.

13. Hunting game to eat under necessity

وَإِنِ اضْطُرَّ الْمُحْرِمُ إِلَى أَكْلِ لَحْمِ الصَّيْدِ فَقَتَلَهُ فَعَلَيْهِ الْجَزَاءُ.
Translation: If a person in ihram is compelled by necessity to eat game and kills it, compensation is still due.

Idturr(a) describes compulsion by necessity. The passage expressly retains game compensation where game is killed for needed food.

Do not confuse this with killing an attacking predator in self-defence: the facts and liability rules are distinct.

14. Two needs, two distinct rules

Defence: an animal actually attacks the muhrim and the animal is killed to repel it—no compensation in the cited clause.

Food need: the muhrim kills game because food is urgently needed—game compensation is still due.

Both may involve difficulty, but their legal outcomes are not interchangeable.

15. Slaughtering ordinary domestic animals

وَلَا بَأْسَ أَنْ يَذْبَحَ الْمُحْرِمُ الشَّاةَ، وَالْبَقَرَ، وَالْبَعِيرَ، وَالدَّجَاجَ، وَالْبَطَّ الْكَسْكَرِيَّ.
Translation: There is no objection to a person in ihram slaughtering sheep/goats, cattle, camels, chickens, and the domestic Kashkari duck.

These are ordinary domestic stock or fowl and are not treated here as prohibited wild game.

Al-batt al-kaskari specifies a domestic kind of duck. It is not a general license to hunt every wild duck. Other normal rules of valid slaughter remain relevant; this clause addresses the ihram restriction.

16. Domestic stock versus game

Cattle, sheep/goats, camels and chickens are ordinary domestic stock.

A deer remains a species of protected wild game even if it has become used to people.

Whether an individual animal lives near humans is not identical to whether its species belongs to domestic livestock. The next clause gives a specific example.

17. A tame wild animal remains protected game

وَإِنْ قَتَلَ حَمَامًا مُسَرْوَلًا، أَوْ ظَبْيًا مُسْتَأْنَسًا، فَعَلَيْهِ الْجَزَاءُ.
Translation: If he kills a feather-legged pigeon or a tame, habituated gazelle/deer, compensation is due.

Hamaman musarwalan describes a pigeon with feathers on its legs. Zaby(an) mustaʾnasan is a gazelle/deer accustomed to humans.

Neither the feathering of the pigeon nor the habituation of the deer makes the specified animal exempt from the compensation rule.

18. Chicken, pigeon and tame deer contrasted

A domestic chicken may be slaughtered without the game penalty.

Killing the specified feather-legged pigeon incurs game compensation.

Killing a deer accustomed to human care also incurs compensation.

Being kept near people does not by itself classify a wild game species as ordinary domestic livestock.

19. Game slaughtered by someone in ihram

وَإِنْ ذَبَحَ الْمُحْرِمُ صَيْدًا فَذَبِيحَتُهُ مَيْتَةٌ لَا يَحِلُّ أَكْلُهَا.
Translation: If the person in ihram slaughters game, the resulting carcass is treated as carrion and may not be eaten.

The text now considers edibility, not just compensation. Game slaughtered by the person in ihram is treated as carrion and is not lawful to eat.

This must be distinguished from slaughtering ordinary domestic livestock.

Paying the game penalty is not a means of converting this specific slaughtered animal into lawful meat; the two issues are separate.

20. Financial penalty and lawful food are different

Two questions arise when someone in ihram kills wild game:
1. What compensation is owed for hunting?
2. Is meat from the resulting slaughter lawful?

Al-Quduri explicitly says of this slaughter: la yahillu akluha—it is not lawful to eat.

Payment of compensation does not itself change the meat’s edibility.

21. Game hunted independently by someone outside ihram

وَلَا بَأْسَ أَنْ يَأْكُلَ الْمُحْرِمُ لَحْمَ صَيْدٍ اصْطَادَهُ حَلَالٌ وَذَبَحَهُ، إِذَا لَمْ يَدُلَّهُ الْمُحْرِمُ عَلَيْهِ، وَلَا أَمَرَهُ بِصَيْدِهِ.
Translation: A person in ihram may eat game lawfully hunted and slaughtered by a person outside ihram, provided the muhrim did not point it out or instruct the other person to hunt it.

Here halal is the noun meaning a person not in the state of ihram, not merely the adjective “lawful meat.”

The passage gives two conditions: the muhrim must not have directed the hunter to the animal or ordered the hunt. Subject to the applicable rules for lawful hunting and location, independently hunted and validly slaughtered game may be eaten.

22. Pointing out game and commissioning a hunt

Case 1: A person outside ihram hunts and slaughters game independently of the muhrim; eating may be permissible if other rules are satisfied.

Case 2: The muhrim points out the animal to the hunter; this fails the “did not indicate it” condition.

Case 3: The muhrim orders a hunt; this fails the “did not command it” condition.

The prohibition is not evaded simply by making another person do the hunting.

23. Ihram and the Haram boundary are not identical

Ihram is the ritual state entered for Hajj or Umrah. The Haram refers to a defined geographical sanctuary.

A person may be outside ihram while inside the sanctuary, and a person in ihram may be outside sanctuary limits. Their hunting restrictions are not interchangeable.

The next clause begins wa-fi sayd al-haram, bringing in the sanctuary-specific rule, reserved for Level 097.

24. Key Arabic vocabulary and morphology

Al-hidaʾah: kite, a bird of prey.
Al-ʿaqur: dangerously biting or wounding, qualifying the dog.
Qamlah: one louse; qaml is collective.
Jaradah: one locust; jarad is collective.
Al-sibaʿ: predators, plural of sabuʿ.
Idturra: “was compelled,” a passive perfect of form VIII.
Mustaʾnas: domesticated/habituated, the passive participle of form X.

25. Grammar of laysa fi qatli ... jazaʾun

Laysa: a defective negative verb.
Fi qatli al-ghurabi: a prepositional phrase functioning as the fronted predicate of laysa; qatli is genitive and al-ghurabi is a genitive mudaf ilayh.
Jazaʾun: the delayed nominative subject of laysa.

The syntax negates the specified game compensation. It should not be broadened to negate all other legal or moral considerations.

26. Grammar of man qatala ... tasaddaqa

Man: a conditional relative word meaning “whoever.”
Qatala qamlatan: “kills a louse”; qamlatan is its accusative object.
Tasaddaqa: the consequent verb, “gives charity.”
Bima shaʾa: “with whatever he wishes.”

The syntactic construction specifies charity without setting a large fixed quantity in this clause.

27. Halal versus muhrim in this passage

Muhrim is a person in the state of ihram. Halal (as a person) is the converse: one not in ihram.

In istadahu halalun, halalun is the nominative subject of the hunting verb: “a non-muhrim hunted it.”

Reading halal here solely as an adjective modifying meat would distort both the grammar and the legal rule.

28. Apply all the distinctions to cases

1. Kills a tick: no financial liability.
2. Kills a louse: unspecified charity.
3. Kills a non-exempt predator without an attack: compensation capped at a sheep’s value.
4. Kills an attacking predator in defence: nothing due.
5. Kills protected game for necessary food: compensation remains due.
6. Slaughters ordinary domestic sheep: lawful domestic slaughter.
7. Kills a tame deer: compensation due.
8. Slaughters wild game himself while in ihram: its meat is not lawful.

29. Recap and the next level

Named exceptions carry no game penalty, whereas killing a louse or a locust is accompanied by unspecified charity.

Compensation for other non-edible predators is capped at a sheep’s value; an attacking predator killed in defence is treated separately.

Necessity for food does not erase hunting compensation. Domestic stock is not the same as a wild game animal that has become tame.

The muhrim’s own game slaughter is not lawful meat, but independently hunted and validly slaughtered game may be eaten under the stated conditions. Next comes sanctuary game and vegetation.