a man is said to enter into consecration when he assumes ihram, and to enter into consecration when he enters the Sacred Sanctuary. This was revealed concerning a man known as Abu al-Yusr, who attacked and killed a wild ass while in a state of consecration.

Allah Most High says: “Whoever among you kills it deliberately.” They differed concerning this deliberate act. One group said: it means deliberately killing the game while having forgotten one’s state of consecration. But if he kills it deliberately while remembering that he is in a state of consecration, then there is no legal ruling upon him; rather, his affair rests with Allah, because his offence is too grave to be expiated. This was the view of Mujahid and al-Hasan.

Others said: it means that a person in a state of consecration deliberately kills game while remembering his state of consecration; in that case, he must offer the expiation.

They also differed regarding one who kills it by mistake. Most jurists held that deliberate and accidental killing are alike with respect to the obligation of expiation. Al-Zuhri said: “The deliberate offender is liable by the Book, and the one who errs is liable by the sunnah.” Sa'id ibn [Jubayr] (1) said: no expiation for game is due when it is killed accidentally; rather, it applies exclusively to deliberate killing.

His saying, exalted is He: “Then the compensation shall be an equivalent.” The people of Kufa and Ya'qub recited it as “fajāzāʾun mithlu” (“then the compensation is an equivalent”), with the word for “compensation” indefinite and “equivalent” in the nominative as an apposition to it. The others recited it in the construct form: “then the compensation is the equivalent of what he killed of livestock.” Its meaning is that he must provide livestock equivalent to the game in question. What is intended is an animal resembling the game that was killed in physical form, not in monetary value.

“Two just men among you shall judge it”: that is, two upright men are to determine the compensation. They should be jurists, considering which livestock animal most closely resembles it and judging accordingly. Among those who held that an equivalent animal from livestock is obligatory were Umar, Uthman, Ali, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas, and other Companions—may Allah be pleased with them. In different lands and at different times, they ruled that an equivalent from livestock was due. Thus, one judge ruled that an ostrich required a sacrificial camel, although it is not worth a camel; that a wild ass required a cow [although it is not worth a cow] (2); and that a hyena required a ram, although it is not worth a ram. This shows that they considered what most closely resembled the game in physical form [rather than in monetary value] (3).

For a pigeon, a sheep is due. This includes every bird that drinks by suction and coos, such as the ring dove and the turtle-dove.

It is narrated from Umar, Uthman, and Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them—that they ruled that a sheep was due for the pigeons of Mecca. Abu al-Hasan al-Sarakhsi informed us; Zahir ibn Ahmad informed us; Abu Ishaq al-Hashimi narrated to us; Abu Mus'ab narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu