indicates—if it indicates anything—that the question was well framed; but not everyone who is asked a question can answer it well. Moreover, if enumerating all the possible cases was necessary, he did not enumerate them all; and if it was not necessary, there was no need to mention only some of them. For (1) one possible distinction is to ask: “Was it intentional or accidental?”

This distinction deserved mention more than his question, “Did he know or was he ignorant?” The distinction between an intentional and an accidental act with respect to sin (2) is established by consensus, while there is a well-known disagreement over whether the penalty is due in a case of mistake. A group of the early and later scholars held that no penalty is due from one who acts by mistake. This (3) is one of the two reports from Ahmad.

They argued that Allah, Exalted is He, says:

“Whoever among you kills it intentionally, the penalty is the equivalent, from livestock, of the game he killed,” to the end of the verse [Surah al-Mā’idah: 95].

Thus, He singled out the intentional offender by imposing (4) the penalty. This requires that no penalty be due from one who acts by mistake, since the presumption is that he bears no liability. The text imposed (5) it only upon the intentional offender, so the one who acted by mistake remains subject to the original presumption. Furthermore, restricting the ruling to the intentional offender entails excluding the mistaken offender from it, for this is the negative implication of a qualifier occurring in a conditional clause, and the specific was mentioned after the general. If the ruling encompassed both types, the words, “Whoever among you kills it,” would make clear (6) the ruling concisely; but if