despite our having stated that the prohibition against removing hair applies generally to the entire body of a person in iḥrām, there is nothing due for this. Likewise, if one of his nails breaks and begins to cause him pain whenever anything touches it, then he trims the broken part, nothing is due from him, because he removed it to relieve its harm.

Questions:

First: Is an animal killed in order to ward off its harm lawful to eat?

The answer: If it is killed without a legally valid slaughter, it is unlawful. However, if it is properly slaughtered—for example, if it is a camel and he strikes it at the base of its neck, causes the blood to flow, and mentions the name of Allah—it is lawful, because he intended slaughter while defending himself. But if the intention of slaughter did not occur to him and he intended only to defend himself, then it is unlawful. One should therefore take heed of this matter: the intention to slaughter is essential. Thus, if you throw a knife in such a manner at something and it strikes a sheep at its place of slaughter and causes the blood to flow, is it lawful? The answer: No.

For this reason, the slaughter performed by an insane person is invalid, because he has no intention; likewise, the slaughter performed by an intoxicated person is invalid. Intention is indispensable.

Second: If a person in iḥrām hunts game at a time when it is prohibited to him, he may not eat it, because it is forbidden on account of the right of Allah.

If someone wrongfully takes another person’s sheep and slaughters it, is eating it unlawful? There are two views:

The first view: It is unlawful, by analogy with the game hunted by a person in iḥrām.

The second view: It is not unlawful, because he must compensate its owner with its value or with an equivalent animal; however, he is sinful. This is the correct view.

Third: If a person in iḥrām kills game, it is unlawful for him and for others, because it is akin to carrion.