In the sound ḥadīth related by ʿĀʾishah it is reported that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—said:

“Five creatures may be slain within the Sacred Precinct,” and he listed among them “the pied crow.”

Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī diverged from the general view and held that the pilgrim in iḥrām may kill nothing of the game animals except the mouse.

As for their disagreement over what does and does not count as sea game, they unanimously agree that fish are sea game, but differed regarding everything else. Their reasoning is that any sea creature that requires ritual slaughter (dhakāh) is not classed as sea game, and most such animals are in fact unlawful. There is no dispute among those who consider all marine life lawful that whatever is hunted from the sea is permissible; their debate concerns creatures that live both on land and in water—under which of the two rulings should they be placed? The principle adopted by the majority of jurists is to assign them to the environment in which they spend most of their lives, which is also where they are born.

The great majority hold that waterfowl are governed by the ruling applied to land animals. ʿAṭāʾ is reported to have said about water birds: “They are judged according to the place where they spend the greater part of their lives.”

They also disagreed about the vegetation of the Sacred Precinct: does damaging it require compensation or not?
• Mālik said: No compensation is due; only sin is incurred, because of the explicit prohibition.
• Al-Shāfiʿī said: Compensation is required—one cow for a full-grown tree, and one sheep for anything smaller.
• Abū Ḥanīfah said: Whatever has been planted by human hands entails nothing, whereas anything that grows naturally requires payment of its value.

The root of the dispute is whether vegetation should be analogically compared to animals, since both are included in the Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—words: “Its game is not to be disturbed, nor its trees cut.”

Such, then, is the ruling on the well-known questions of this kind. Let us now discuss the case of one who shaves his head before the appointed time.

[Concerning the fidyah for harm and the ruling of one who shaves his head prematurely]

The fidyah for harm is also unanimously agreed upon, because both the Qurʾān and the Sunnah establish it. As for the Qurʾān, it is the Almighty’s statement:

“Whoever among you is ill, or has an ailment of the head, must offer a ransom: fasting, charity, or sacrifice” (al-Baqarah 2:196).

From the Sunnah we have the authentic ḥadīth of Kaʿb ibn ʿUjrah: he was with the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—while in iḥrām, and lice were harming his head. The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—ordered him to shave his head and said, “Fast three days, or feed six needy people two handfuls each, or offer a sheep in sacrifice. Whichever of these you do will suffice for you.”

The discussion of this verse concerns: upon whom is the fidyah obligatory and upon whom is it not; when it is obligatory, what form must the fidyah take; for which actions, for whom, when, and where is it required?

Regarding those upon whom the fidyah is due, the scholars unanimously agree that it is obligatory for anyone who removes a source of harm out of necessity, for the textual evidence establishes this. They disagreed, however, about one who removes it without necessity. Mālik said: he must pay the fidyah specified in the text.