They said: "By Allah, we will not assist you with it." In another narration: "So I sought their assistance, but they refused to assist me." This indicates that they believed assistance was prohibited, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) approved of them for that. Furthermore, it is assistance in a prohibited act, so it is prohibited, just like assisting in the killing of a human being.

Section: Game is guaranteed through direction (dalalah). If one in a state of ihram directs a person who is not (halal) to game and he destroys it, the entire compensation (jaza') is upon the one in ihram. This has been narrated from Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ata', Mujahid, Bakr al-Muzani, Ishaq, and the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y). Malik and al-Shafi'i said: "There is nothing upon the one who directs, because it is guaranteed through the act of transgression (jinayah), so it is not guaranteed through direction, just like a human being (6)." Our evidence is the statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to the companions of Abu Qatadah: "Did any of you order him to attack it, or point toward it?" Also, because it is a cause through which the destruction of game is achieved, the guarantee attaches to it, just as if one had set a trap, and because this is the position of Ali and Ibn Abbas. We know of no one among the Companions who contradicted them.

Section: If one directs a person in a state of ihram to game, and he kills it, then the compensation is shared between them. This is the view of Ata' and Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman. Al-Sha'bi, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-Harith al-'Ukli, and the scholars of opinion said: "Upon each one of them is a full compensation, because each of the two acts is independent with a full compensation if it were alone; thus, it is the same when another joins it." Malik and al-Shafi'i said: "There is no guarantee upon the one who directs." Our evidence is that what is mandatory is compensation for what has been destroyed, and it is one (7); therefore, the compensation is one, and regarding the view of (8) Malik and al-Shafi'i, what has preceded applies. There is no difference in all of this between whether the thing directed to [it] was apparent or hidden and not seen except by directing to it. If one in a state of ihram directed one in a state of ihram to game, then the second directed another, and then (8) likewise up to ten, and the tenth killed it, the compensation would be upon all of them. If the first one killed it, the others would not be held liable, because no one had directed him to it, so no one participates with him