That point, then, is a matter of consensus, for it is transmitted from ʿUmar ibn al-Khatṭāb with no Companion dissenting.

It is related from ʿAṭāʾ that he said, “For every kind of bird, a sheep is required.”

They disagreed, however, about ostrich eggs. Mālik held: “For an ostrich egg one-tenth of the price of a sacrificial camel (badanah) is due.” Abū Ḥanīfah, consistently applying his principle of monetary valuation, said that its market price is owed, and in this question al-Shāfiʿī agreed with him, as did Abū Thawr.

Abū Ḥanīfah further said: “If the egg contains a dead chick, the full compensation for an ostrich becomes obligatory.” Abū Thawr added the condition that the chick must first emerge alive and then die.

A report from ʿAlī states that for ostrich eggs he ruled that the stud camel be let loose among the herd; when pregnancy becomes evident in the she-camels, you designate as a sacrificial offering (hady) whatever number of eggs you had destroyed, and thereafter you are not liable for any fetus that is lost.

ʿAṭāʾ said: “Anyone who owns camels should follow ʿAlī’s ruling; otherwise, for each egg two dirhams are due.”

Abū ʿUmar remarks: A narration exists from Ibn ʿAbbās—through Kaʿb ibn ʿUjrah—from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “For an ostrich egg broken by a person in ihrām, its price is due,” but the isnād is not strong. A weak report from Ibn Masʿūd likewise states that its value is owed.

The majority of scholars hold that locusts are land game, so a person in ihrām who kills them must pay compensation. They differed over what that compensation is. ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “A handful of food,” and this was also Mālik’s view.

Abū Ḥanīfah and his associates said: “One date is better than one locust”—meaning that at least a date must be given. Al-Shāfiʿī ruled that their market value is due. Abū Thawr concurred, except that he said: “Whatever he gives in charity—be it a handful of food or a single date—counts as its value.” A report from Ibn ʿAbbās likewise says that for each locust a date is required, matching Abū Ḥanīfah’s position.

Rabīʿah held that a sāʻ of food is due—a solitary view; and a report from Ibn ʿUmar imposes a small ewe, which is likewise anomalous.

These are the well-known cases in which they agreed that compensation is obligatory, though they differed over what that compensation should be.

As for their disagreement about what counts as game and what does not, and what belongs to sea game and what does not: they are unanimous that land game is forbidden to a person in ihrām except for the five harmful creatures expressly named, though they differ over what else should be assimilated to them. Likewise, they agree that all sea game is lawful for the person in ihrām, yet they disagree over which creatures truly belong to sea game and which do not. All of this is based on the Almighty’s words:

“Lawful for you is the game of the sea and its food as a provision for you and for travelers, but forbidden to you is the game of the land while you are in a state of consecration.” (Q 5:96)