it is also incumbent upon him to purchase it, for the reason we have mentioned. If he is unable to afford the price, he is in the same position as someone who has no money. If the owner refuses to offer it except at a price higher than its fair market value, and the person in necessity buys it at that price, he is not obligated to pay more than the fair market value, because the excess is the value of something he is not entitled to, so he is not bound by it, just as in the case of one under duress.

Section: If the pilgrim in the state of ihram finds carrion and game, he should eat the carrion. This is the view of al-Hasan, Malik, Abu Hanifa, and his companions. Al-Shafi'i said in one of his two opinions: He may eat the game and offer a penalty (fidyah) for it. This is also the opinion of al-Sha'bi, because necessity permits it, and given the ability to obtain it, the carrion is not lawful because he is not in need of it. Our evidence is that the permissibility of eating carrion is textually prescribed (mansus), while the permissibility of [eating] game is a matter of ijtihad; giving priority to the textually prescribed is more appropriate. If he does not find carrion, he may slaughter the game and eat it. Ahmad explicitly stated this, because he is in a state of absolute necessity for it. It has been said that there are three prohibitions regarding game: the prohibition of killing it, eating it, and the prohibition of carrion. Since what the pilgrim slaughters from the game becomes carrion, it is equal to carrion in this regard, and it is superior to it because of the additional prohibitions on killing and eating. However, it is argued against this: when the Lawgiver permits him to slaughter it, it does not become carrion. For this reason, if he did not find carrion and slaughtered it, it is considered a validly slaughtered (dhakiyah) and pure animal, not impure, nor carrion. Therefore, he is required to slaughter it at the place of slaughter, and the conditions of ritual slaughter must be observed, and it is not permissible to simply kill it; if it were carrion, that would not be required of him.

Section: When the pilgrim in the state of ihram slaughters game in a state of necessity, it is permissible for him to eat until he is satiated, because it is meat that has been ritually slaughtered, and no other human has a right to it, so he is permitted to eat until satiated, just as if a person not in ihram slaughtered it for his sake.

Section: If the person in necessity finds nothing, it is not permissible for him to eat some of his own limbs. Some of the companions of al-Shafi'i said: He may do so, because he is allowed to preserve his whole body by severing a limb, as in the case of gangrene. Our evidence is that him eating from himself might kill him, so he would be a killer of his own self, and there is no certainty that survival will be achieved by eating it. As for severing a limb affected by gangrene, one fears death from that limb, so he is permitted to remove it and push away the harm directed toward him by leaving it, just as it is permitted to kill one who attacks him; however, it is not permitted for him to kill himself in order to eat [the flesh].

Section: If he finds no one except a human whose blood is protected (ma'sum al-dam), it is not permissible for him to kill him by consensus, nor to destroy a limb from him, whether he is a Muslim or a disbeliever, because he is his equal, so it is not permitted for him to protect his own life by destroying him. There is no disagreement on this. If his blood is not protected, such as a combatant (harbi) or an apostate, the Qadi mentioned that it is permissible for him to kill him and eat him, because his killing is permitted. The companions of al-Shafi'i said the same, because he has no sanctity, so he is in the position of wild beasts. If he finds him already dead, it is permissible to eat him, because his eating is permitted after killing him, so it is the same after his death. If he finds a protected person who is already dead, it is not permitted to eat him according to the opinion of our companions. Al-Shafi'i and some Hanafis said: It is permitted, and this is more appropriate, because the sanctity of the living is greater. Abu Bakr ibn Dawud said: Al-Shafi'i permitted eating the meat of prophets. Our companions argued using the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Breaking the bone of a dead person is like breaking the bone of a living person." Abu al-Khattab opted for the view that he may eat it, and said: There is no proof in the Hadith here, because the eating is of the flesh, not the bone, and the intent of the Hadith is to provide a simile regarding the foundation of sanctity, not its extent, as evidenced by their difference regarding compensation (daman), retaliation (qisas), and the necessity of protecting the living in ways that the dead do not need protection from.