Bab Jinayat al-Muhrim — Hunting Penalties, Valuation and Liability (Part IV)

1. Three questions about liability for game

Here “game” denotes an animal that belongs by its original nature to the class of wild, huntable animals. The question is what happens when someone in Hajj or Umrah ihram kills or harms it.

Separate three questions:
1. Was the act prohibited?
2. Is compensation (jaza) due?
3. How is that compensation discharged?

The method can depend on valuation, animal category, and a scholarly disagreement; avoid one blanket rule for every scenario.

2. Killing game or identifying it to a hunter

وَإِذَا قَتَلَ الْمُحْرِمُ صَيْدًا، أَوْ دَلَّ عَلَيْهِ مَنْ قَتَلَهُ: فَعَلَيْهِ الْجَزَاءُ.
Translation: When a person in ihram kills game, or points it out to someone who then kills it, compensation is due from the person in ihram.

Muhrim is a person in ihram; sayd is game. The text mentions direct killing and indication to someone who actually kills the animal.

Hanafi commentaries specify conditions for compensable indication, including a causal connection to the killing and the hunter not already knowing the location. It is not a penalty for every unrelated mention of an animal.

3. When indicating game leads to a kill

Example: A person in ihram tells a hunter, who did not know the location, where a wild antelope is. The hunter kills it because of that information. The indicator can be liable under the rule discussed.

If the game was not killed, or the hunter already knew where it was, the commentary conditions must be considered rather than automatically applying the first example.

4. Intentional and forgetful acts

وَيَسْتَوِي فِي ذَلِكَ الْعَامِدُ وَالنَّاسِي، وَالْمُبْتَدِئُ وَالْعَائِدُ.
Translation: The deliberate actor and the forgetful actor are alike in this liability, as are the first-time and repeat offenders.

The comparison concerns compensatory liability: forgetfulness does not cancel the stated compensation when protected game is destroyed.

It does not claim that moral culpability is identical in deliberate and forgetful cases. Sin and compensation answer distinct questions.

5. Wrongdoing versus compensation

Amd: doing the act deliberately.
Nisyan: acting after forgetting the ihram restriction.
Jaza: the specified compensation for harm.

The cited clause concerns the third matter. Equal liability for compensation should not be turned into a claim of identical spiritual blame.

6. Valuation by two reliable assessors

وَالْجَزَاءُ عِنْدَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ: أَنْ يُقَوَّمَ الصَّيْدُ فِي الْمَكَانِ الَّذِي قَتَلَهُ فِيهِ، أَوْ فِي أَقْرَبِ الْمَوَاضِعِ مِنْهُ إِنْ كَانَ فِي بَرِّيَّةٍ، يُقَوِّمُهُ ذَوَا عَدْلٍ.
Translation: According to Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf, the game is valued at the location of its killing, or the nearest suitable place if it was killed in wilderness; two upright assessors appraise it.

First determine the animal and the relevant place, then have two reliable assessors establish its value; it is not an arbitrary self-selected figure.

This is the appraisal method of Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf. Muhammad’s different emphasis on equivalent livestock is stated later in the text.

7. Why the place of appraisal matters

Illustration: One game animal might be estimated at 90 accounting units in a distant market but at 75 units near the place of killing.

The cited method uses the place of killing, or the closest suitable place if in open wilderness—not whichever remote market happens to produce a larger number.

The figures are hypothetical teaching units, not real market prices.

8. Using assessed value for an offering

ثُمَّ هُوَ مُخَيَّرٌ فِي الْقِيمَةِ: إِنْ شَاءَ ابْتَاعَ بِهَا هَدْيًا فَذَبَحَهُ، إِنْ بَلَغَتْ قِيمَتُهُ هَدْيًا.
Translation: He may choose to buy and slaughter an eligible sacrificial animal with the assessed value, provided the amount reaches the cost of such an offering.

Hady means an eligible ritual offering. Buying and slaughtering one is an option when the assessed value is sufficient to procure an eligible animal.

The condition matters. If that sum does not reach the cost of hady, this specific offering option cannot be assumed; the subsequent alternatives must be considered.

9. When the hady option is available

Case 1: The game is appraised at 30 hypothetical units and an eligible hady costs 25. The value is sufficient for the offering option.
Case 2: The appraisal is 10 units but an eligible hady costs 25. The cited threshold is not met.

These figures illustrate the rule, not a real-world livestock price.

10. Buying food and distributing it

وَإِنْ شَاءَ اشْتَرَى بِهَا طَعَامًا، فَتَصَدَّقَ بِهِ عَلَى كُلِّ مِسْكِينٍ نِصْفَ صَاعٍ مِنْ بُرٍّ، أَوْ صَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ، أَوْ صَاعًا مِنْ شَعِيرٍ.
Translation: Alternatively, the value may be used to buy food: each poor recipient receives half a saʿ of wheat, or one saʿ of dates, or one saʿ of barley.

This is the feeding option: food is bought against the appraised value and distributed in the designated share per needy recipient.

The book specifies half a saʿ of wheat versus a whole saʿ of dates or barley; the three measures must not be flattened into one.

11. The three food measures compared

Per needy person, the source specifies:
Wheat—half a saʿ.
Dates—one saʿ.
Barley—one saʿ.

A saʿ is a classical volume measure. Converting it into modern kilograms requires attention to commodity density and the adopted juristic standard, so no unsupported kilogram figure is supplied.

12. Worked example for distributing food

Suppose the assessed value buys three full half-saʿ portions of wheat; that supplies three eligible recipients.

If the same value instead buys two complete saʿ portions of dates, it supplies two date portions.

The assessed value comes first. Food prices and the different prescribed portions can affect the resulting number of recipients.

13. Fasting calculated from food measures

وَإِنْ شَاءَ صَامَ عَنْ كُلِّ نِصْفِ صَاعٍ مِنْ بُرٍّ يَوْمًا، وَعَنْ كُلِّ صَاعٍ مِنْ تَمْرٍ أَوْ شَعِيرٍ يَوْمًا.
Translation: He may instead fast one day for each half-saʿ of wheat, or one day for each whole saʿ of dates or barley.

Days of fasting correspond to the legally specified food portions obtainable with the value, not to an arbitrary number.

If the value represents four full wheat half-saʿ portions, it corresponds to four fasting days; if it represents three barley saʿ portions, it corresponds to three days.

14. Food-type distinctions in fasting calculations

For wheat: one day corresponds to one half-saʿ; three complete half-saʿ portions correspond to three days.

For barley or dates: one day corresponds to one full saʿ; three full saʿ portions correspond to three days.

The unit per day depends on the commodity. “One day per saʿ” would misstate the wheat provision.

15. When a remainder is smaller than a portion

فَإِنْ فَضَلَ مِنَ الطَّعَامِ أَقَلُّ مِنْ نِصْفِ صَاعٍ، فَهُوَ مُخَيَّرٌ: إِنْ شَاءَ تَصَدَّقَ بِهِ، وَإِنْ شَاءَ صَامَ عَنْهُ يَوْمًا كَامِلًا.
Translation: If a food remainder is smaller than half a saʿ, he has a choice: give that remainder as charity, or fast a full day for it.

A small remainder is not simply discarded. The text offers giving it away or observing one full fast for the remainder.

The phrase yawman kamilan means an entire fasting day, not a fractional or shortened fast.

16. Worked example with a remainder

Assume the valuation produces two complete wheat half-saʿ portions plus a smaller remainder.

The two complete portions correspond to two fasts. The remainder must either be donated or matched by a third full fast.

It is not sound to fast for only two portions and ignore the remainder.

17. Muhammad’s position on livestock equivalents

وَقَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ: يَجِبُ فِي الصَّيْدِ النَّظِيرُ فِيمَا لَهُ نَظِيرٌ.
Translation: Muhammad holds that when the hunted animal has a corresponding livestock equivalent, that equivalent is owed.

This differs from the primary value-appraisal framework just stated for Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf. Muhammad treats a recognized domestic-animal analogue as the required equivalent where one exists.

Nazir denotes the juristically identified counterpart, not simply anything with an approximately similar price.

18. Five examples of animal equivalents

فَفِي الظَّبْيِ شَاةٌ، وَفِي الضَّبُعِ شَاةٌ، وَفِي الْأَرْنَبِ عَنَاقٌ، وَفِي النَّعَامَةِ بَدَنَةٌ، وَفِي الْيَرْبُوعِ جَفْرَةٌ.
Translation: Thus the text lists a sheep/goat for an antelope, a sheep/goat for a hyena, a young goat for a hare, a large sacrificial animal for an ostrich, and a young goat for a jerboa.

Zaby is an antelope/gazelle; dabuʿ a hyena; arnab a hare; naʿamah an ostrich; and yarbuʿ a jerboa.

Anaq and jafrah are age-specific young-goat terms and should not be blurred into an ordinary adult goat. These are examples under Muhammad’s position.

19. Compare the methods without merging them

Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf: two upright assessors establish the relevant value, followed by the specified options of offering, feeding, or fasting.

Muhammad: where a recognized equivalent livestock animal exists, that analogue is due; the source then lists examples.

Keep the attribution of each method explicit rather than presenting either as everyone’s undifferentiated view.

20. Liability for injury or loss of value

وَمَنْ جَرَحَ صَيْدًا، أَوْ نَتَفَ شَعْرَهُ، أَوْ قَطَعَ عُضْوًا مِنْهُ: ضَمِنَ مَا نَقَصَ مِنْ قِيمَتِهِ.
Translation: Whoever wounds game, plucks its hair, or severs one of its limbs is liable for the amount by which its value is reduced.

Here the animal remains alive but has been harmed. The liability is the reduction in its value rather than automatically the entire value.

If its hypothetical value was 100 units before injury and 65 afterward, the assessed loss is 35 units. Actual losses require proper appraisal.

21. Comparing full value and diminution

Case A: An injured animal still escapes normally but depreciates from 120 to 105 hypothetical units. The loss is 15 units.

Case B: The animal loses its capacity to escape. The next clause imposes the full value.

Do not treat every injury as either always partial liability or always full liability; the resulting state matters.

22. When loss of feathers or legs removes the ability to escape

وَإِنْ نَتَفَ رِيشَ طَائِرٍ، أَوْ قَطَعَ قَوَائِمَ صَيْدٍ، فَخَرَجَ مِنْ حَيِّزِ الِامْتِنَاعِ: فَعَلَيْهِ قِيمَتُهُ كَامِلَةً.
Translation: If he plucks a bird’s feathers or removes the legs of game, such that it can no longer evade capture, its full value is due.

Hayyiz al-imtinaʿ refers to an animal’s natural ability to avoid capture. When harm deprives it of that ability, al-Quduri requires its entire value.

The reason is not simply that feathers or legs were affected; the decisive phrase is that the animal falls outside the category of self-protecting, escape-capable game.

23. Two feather-loss cases

Case 1: Some feathers are damaged, but the bird can still fly and evade capture. Liability tracks the provable depreciation.

Case 2: Essential feathers are removed so it can no longer escape. The full-value clause applies.

What changes is whether the capacity for evasion survives, not merely that feathers were plucked.

24. Breaking the egg of game

وَمَنْ كَسَرَ بَيْضَ صَيْدٍ: فَعَلَيْهِ قِيمَتُهُ.
Translation: Whoever breaks the egg of game is liable for its value.

The text treats the protected egg as having compensable value. Breaking an egg is not automatically the same as killing a fully grown animal: this clause specifically mentions the egg’s value.

A separate rule follows when a dead formed chick emerges from the broken egg.

25. When a dead chick emerges from the egg

فَإِنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ الْبَيْضِ فَرْخٌ مَيِّتٌ: فَعَلَيْهِ قِيمَتُهُ حَيًّا.
Translation: If a dead chick emerges from the egg, the liability is its assessed value as a living chick.

Farkh is a chick, and hayyan indicates its living state for valuation. The clause distinguishes a broken egg from a case involving the destroyed chick inside.

This is a specific textual rule; it should not be generalized to every infertile or unformed egg without additional juristic examination.

26. Egg value versus chick value

Case 1: The egg of protected game is broken: the egg’s value is due.
Case 2: A dead chick emerges from the broken egg: al-Quduri states the chick’s value assessed as if alive.

The word hayyan specifies the valuation state in the second case, so the cases must be kept distinct.

27. Vocabulary and grammar in context

Saydan: accusative direct object, the animal killed.
Dalla ʿalayhi: indicated or pointed it out; ʿalayhi is a prepositional phrase.
Dhawa ʿadl: two upright assessors; dhawa is nominative with alif as the sign of the dual.
Mukhayyar: passive participle, one granted a choice.
Nazir: a counterpart or equivalent.
Natafa: past tense, “plucked.”
Farkhun mayyitun: nominative subject and its agreeing adjective.
Hayyan: an accusative circumstantial expression specifying assessment in the living state.

28. Four-step decision path for compensation

1. Identify the incident: killing, legally relevant indication, partial injury, loss of ability to escape, or damage to an egg.
2. Establish value under the Abu Hanifah–Abu Yusuf appraisal method, using the appropriate place and two upright assessors.
3. Identify whether the cited rule is value-based or Muhammad’s equivalent-animal position.
4. Determine the available form of payment: qualified hady, food, fasts and any fractional remainder.

This sequence prevents guessing a fixed penalty merely from an animal’s name.

29. Worked situations requiring different rules

1. A person in ihram intentionally kills game: compensation arises.
2. The person kills game forgetfully: compensation still applies in the cited ruling.
3. Game survives but depreciates from 90 to 70: a loss of 20 hypothetical units.
4. The animal loses all ability to escape: its full value is due.
5. An egg of protected game is broken: the egg’s value applies.
6. A dead chick emerges from the broken egg: its living-state value is the stated rule.

Numerical amounts are illustrative; proper appraisal governs actual cases.

30. Recap and the next textual boundary

Killing or compensable indication leads to jaza, and forgetfulness does not negate liability.

Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf use two-assessor valuation with conditional alternatives of offering, feeding, or fasting. Muhammad’s livestock-analogue position is separate.

Partial injury leads to the proven depreciation, but loss of escape capacity calls for the full value. Eggs and formed chicks are also differentiated.

The following clause starts “wa-laysa fi qatli al-ghurab” and treats exceptions for various animals; that text belongs to Level 096.