However, the correct view is that game in the possession of a person in a state of iḥrām is unlawful if he acquired it after entering iḥrām, and he may not keep it in his possession.

But if he acquired it before entering iḥrām and then entered iḥrām while it was in his possession, it remains his property and his ownership of it is complete. The established position of the madhhab is that he must relinquish his actual possession of it.

For example, if he hunts a rabbit at Qarn al-Manāzil before entering iḥrām, then enters iḥrām while the rabbit is with him, we say: You must release it, because he cannot retain actual possession of game while in iḥrām. Yet his ownership of it does not cease. Thus, if someone takes it and its owner subsequently leaves iḥrām, it is returned to him and he may take it back.

As for if he hunted it after entering iḥrām, he must release it, and it does not enter his ownership at all, because it is unlawful for a person in iḥrām to hunt terrestrial game possessing the three descriptions mentioned previously.

His statement, “he must provide its compensation,” apparently means that he is liable for its compensation whether it perishes through his transgression, negligence, or otherwise. And this is indeed the case, because retaining possession of it is unlawful. He is therefore like a usurper, and a usurper is liable for the usurped property in every circumstance; likewise, this person is liable for it in every circumstance.

His statement, “he must provide its compensation”: the compensation for game will be discussed in detail later in the author’s words.

“Nor is it prohibited to kill a domesticated animal, to hunt sea game, to kill an animal whose meat is unlawful to eat, or to kill an attacking animal …”

His statement, “Nor is a domesticated animal prohibited”: the author now begins to mention the implied converse of his previous statement.

Thus, his statement, “Nor is a domesticated animal prohibited,” is the implied converse of his statement, “terrestrial