Hurum are those who are in a state of ihram, the plural of haram. Kurdah is used in the plural of radah. Intentional killing means to kill while being aware of one's ihram, or knowing that what he is killing is something that is prohibited for him to kill. If he kills while forgetting his ihram, or shoots at game thinking it is not game, and then it turns out to be game, or he aims to shoot something other than game and the arrow diverts from its target and hits game, he is mistaken. If you say: 'The prohibitions of ihram are the same in intentional and unintentional acts, why is intentionality conditioned in the verse?' I say: Because the context of the verse is regarding someone who acts intentionally. It has been narrated that during the Umrah of Hudaybiyyah, a wild donkey appeared, and Abu al-Yusr mounted it and stabbed it with his spear and killed it. He was told: 'You have killed game while in a state of ihram,' so the verse was revealed. The original act is intentionality, and the mistake is secondary due to the severity of the matter. This is supported by the saying of Allah, the Most High: '(So that he may taste the consequence of his action)' and '(And whoever returns, Allah will take vengeance on him).' Al-Zuhri said: The scripture was revealed regarding intentional acts, and the Sunnah was revealed regarding mistakes. And from Sa'id ibn Jubair: I do not see anything in the mistake that would take precedence over the condition of intentionality in the verse. And from al-Hasan, there are two narrations: 'The compensation is like what he killed,' meaning: he must compensate with something that resembles what he killed from the game. According to Abu Hanifah, it is the value of the game, assessed where it was hunted. If its value reaches the price of a sacrificial animal, he has the option to either sacrifice from the livestock equivalent to the value of the game, or to buy food with its value, giving each poor person half a sa' of wheat or a full sa' of something else. If he wishes, he may fast for a day for each poor person. If there is a surplus that does not reach the food of a poor person, he may fast for a day for it or give it as charity. According to Muhammad and al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on them, it is a similar counterpart from the livestock. If there is no counterpart from the livestock, he resorts to the opinion of Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him. If you say: 'What does one do who interprets the equivalent by value with the saying 'from the livestock,' which is an interpretation of the equivalent, and with the saying: 'a sacrifice reaching the Ka'bah?' I say: The one who mandated the value has the option to buy a sacrifice, food, or to fast, as Allah, the Most High, has given the choice in the verse. Thus, the saying 'from the livestock' clarifies the sacrifice purchased with the value in one of the options of choice. For whoever assesses the game and buys a sacrifice with the value and offers it, he has compensated with something that resembles what he killed from the livestock. The choice mentioned in the verse between being compensated with a sacrifice or expiating by feeding or fasting is only valid in a clear manner without difficulty if he assesses and then considers which of the three he chooses. However, if he directly takes the counterpart and makes it obligatory without choice—if it is something that has no counterpart, it is then assessed, and he is given the option between feeding and fasting—this deviates from what is in the verse. Do you not see the saying of Allah, the Most High: '(Or an expiation of feeding the poor or the equivalent of that in fasting)?' How He has given the choice between the three things, and there is no way to do that except through assessment. Abdullah read: 'So his compensation is like what he killed,' and it was also recited: 'So the compensation is like what he killed,' in the genitive case, and its origin is: 'So the compensation is like what he killed,' with 'like' in the accusative case meaning: 'He must compensate with something like what he killed,' then it was added as you say: 'I was amazed by the beating of Zayd.' Al-Sulami read according to the origin, and Muhammad ibn Muqatil read: 'So the compensation is like what he killed,' in both accusative forms, meaning:

So let there be a recompense similar to what was killed. Al-Hasan read: 'from the livestock,' with the 'ayn being silent, as he found the movement difficult on the throat letter, so he made it silent. He means by saying: 'two just men from among you,' two just judges from the Muslims. They said: And therein is evidence that the equivalent is the value, because valuation requires consideration and effort, unlike the things that are observed. And from Qabisa, he caught a gazelle while in a state of ihram, so he asked Umar, who consulted Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf, then commanded him to slaughter a sheep. Qabisa said to his companion: By Allah, the Commander of the Faithful did not know until he asked someone else. So he turned to him and struck him with the rod and said: Do you seek a ruling and kill the game while you are in a state of ihram? Allah, the Exalted, said: 'Let there be two just men from among you.' So I am Umar, and this is Abdur-Rahman. [This was narrated by Abdur-Razzaq from Ma'mar from Abdul-Malik ibn Umayr, and he mentioned it. And it contains the addition at the end.] Muhammad ibn Ja'far read: 'two just from among you,' meaning he rules by it from among those who are just from you and did not mean singularity. It was said that the Imam intended a sacrificial animal as a recompense for one who described it as similar, because the description specified it and brought it closer to the known, or replaced it for one who set it up, or for its place for one who dragged it. It is permissible for it to be in the accusative case as a state for the pronoun in 'by it.' And the sacrificial animal is described as 'reaching the Ka'bah' because its addition is not real. The meaning of reaching the Ka'bah is that it is slaughtered in the sanctuary. As for giving it in charity, wherever you wish according to Abu Hanifah, and in the sanctuary according to Al-Shafi'i. If you say: What raises 'expiation' from what is the recompense? I say: It is made a predicate for a deleted subject, as if it were said: Or the obligation upon him is expiation. Or it is estimated: He must provide a recompense or expiation. So it is connected to 'to provide.' And it was read: 'Or expiation of food for the poor' with the addition. This addition is clarifying, as if it were said: Or expiation from food for a poor person, like saying: a ring of silver, meaning a ring made of silver. Al-A'raj read: 'Or expiation of food for the poor.' And he used the singular because it is in place of clarification, so he sufficed with the singular indicating the type. And it was read: 'Or the equivalent of that,' with the 'ayn being broken. The difference between them is that the equivalent of a thing is what is equivalent to it from a different type, like fasting and feeding. And its equivalent is what is equivalent to it in quantity, and from it is the equivalent of the burden, because each one of them is equivalent to the other until they are balanced, as if the open form is named after the source, and the broken form means the object, like slaughtering and its like, and the like of them is the burden and the burden. And that refers to food as fasting, distinguishing the equivalent like saying: I have a man like him. The choice in that is to the killer of the game according to Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf. And according to Muhammad, it is to the two judges. 'So that he may taste' is related to his saying: 'So the recompense,' meaning he must be recompensed or expiate, so that he may taste the bad consequence of violating the sanctity of ihram. And the burden is the disliked and harm that he incurs in the consequence of a bad deed for its heaviness upon him, like His saying: 'So We seized him with a severe seizing.' Heavy. And the heavy food is that which is burdensome on the stomach and is not enjoyed. May Allah forgive what has preceded for you from the game while in a state of ihram before you return to the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, and ask him about its permissibility. And it was said: About what has preceded for you in ignorance, because they were worshipping by the laws of those before them and the game was forbidden therein. And whoever returns to killing the game while in a state of ihram after the prohibition has been revealed, then Allah will take revenge on him. 'He will take revenge' is a news of a deleted subject, its estimation is: So He will take revenge on him, and that is why the 'fa' was included. And its like is: 'So whoever believes in his Lord, let him not fear,' meaning He will take revenge on him in the Hereafter. And there is a difference of opinion regarding the obligation of expiation upon the one who returns, so from Ata, Ibrahim, Sa'id ibn Jubair, and Al-Hasan: its obligation, and it is upon the majority of the scholars. And from Ibn Abbas and Shuraih: that there is no expiation upon him, based on the apparent meaning, and that he did not mention expiation.