The second category concerns that for which there is no equivalent: one has the choice between two things—feeding the poor or fasting—and the requirement of equivalence is waived. Thus, he may purchase food with its value and feed it to the poor; or he may fast one day in place of feeding each needy person.
An example is locusts: they are game for which there is no equivalent. If a person in the state of ihram kills locusts, he must either pay their value, purchasing food with it and giving each needy person one mudd; or fast one day for every mudd.
As for the sacrificial offering required for tamattu‘ and qiran, a sacrificial animal is obligatory; but if he cannot find one, then he must fast three days, ...........
His statement: “As for the sacrificial offering required for tamattu‘ and qiran, a sacrificial animal is obligatory”: the author, may Allah have mercy on him, included the sacrifice for tamattu‘ and qiran among the prohibitions of ihram. From the standpoint of the work’s organization, this is open to question; each category should be placed with its own kind. As a matter of arrangement, however, this is of little consequence. Yet it is questionable in terms of the ruling itself, because the sacrifice for tamattu‘ is neither a ransom nor an expiation; rather, it is a ritual sacrifice and an expression of gratitude to Allah, Most High. This is why Allah called it a sacrificial offering and permitted a person to eat from it.
Tamattu‘ and qiran therefore require a sacrificial offering. If one cannot find it, he must fast three days during Hajj and seven when he returns to his family. This is in a prescribed order, not a matter of choice. The evidence is Allah’s saying:
“Then whoever performs ‘umrah [during the Hajj months] followed by Hajj shall offer whatever sacrificial animal is available. But whoever cannot find one must fast three days during Hajj and seven when you have returned; that is a complete ten days.” [al-Baqarah: 196]
Allah’s saying, “whatever sacrificial animal is available” [al-Baqarah: 196], concerns its availability, not the sacrificial animal itself. Therefore, no sacrificial animal suffices unless it fulfils the conditions required of a sacrificial offering.
Thus, in His saying, “whatever is available,” the phrase is the subject, while its predicate is omitted; the intended meaning is: he must offer whatever sacrificial animal is available.