due to his (peace and blessings of God be upon him) statement: "My nation is pardoned for error and forgetfulness." As for us, it is a form of destruction, so his intentional act and his erroneous act are equal, just as in killing game. Furthermore, God the Almighty imposed the Fidyah on someone who shaves his head due to an ailment while being excused, which acts as a reminder of its obligation upon those who are not excused, and as evidence for its obligation upon the excused party in another manner, such as one who is cupped and shaves the area of his cupping, or shaves hair over a wound, and the like. Included in the meaning of the forgetful person is the sleeper who pulls out his hair, or directs his hair toward an oven such that the flame of the fire burns his hair, and similar cases.

The third section is that the Fidyah is one of the three mentioned in the verse and the report; he may perform whichever he wishes, because he was commanded to do so with phrasing that provides a choice (takhyeer), and there is no difference in that between the excused and the unexcused, or the intentional and the erroneous. This is the school of Malik and al-Shafi'i. It is narrated from Ahmad that if he shaves without an excuse, he must offer a sacrifice (dam), without a choice. This is the school of Abu Hanifah, because God the Almighty gave the choice conditional upon the existence of the excuse, so if the condition is absent, the choice must necessarily cease. Our response is that the ruling was established for the unexcused person by way of analogical reminder (tanbih) as a consequence of the excused one, and a consequence does not contradict its principle. Furthermore, every expiation in which the choice is established when its cause is permissible, is also established when its cause is prohibited, such as the compensation for hunting; there is no difference between killing it out of necessity to eat it or otherwise, and the condition is for the permissibility of shaving, not for the choice.

The fourth section is that the amount which necessitates a sacrifice is four hairs or more. There is another narration that what is required for three hairs is the same as for shaving the head. Al-Qadi said: "It is the school's position." This is the opinion of al-Hasan, 'Ata', Ibn 'Uyaynah, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr, because it is human hair that falls under the absolute definition of a collective noun, so it is permissible for the sacrifice to be associated with it, just as with a quarter [of the head]. Abu Hanifah said: "A sacrifice is not required for less than a quarter of the head;" because a quarter stands in place of the whole; hence, if a man sees a person he says: "I saw so-and-so," even if he only saw one of his sides. Malik said: "If he shaves from his head that which..."