al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: The obligation is the value, and it is permissible [to spend it on] (28) the equivalent, because the game is not of a type that has an exact equivalent. Our argument is the statement of Allah the Almighty: {Therefore a recompense of the like of what he killed from the livestock} (29). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) decreed a ram for the hyena (30). The Companions reached a consensus on the obligation of the equivalent, for Umar, Uthman, Ali, Zayd ibn Thabit, Ibn Abbas, and Mu'awiyah said: For the ostrich, there is a camel. Abu Ubaydah and Ibn Abbas judged a camel for a wild ass, while Umar judged a cow for it. Umar and Ali judged a sheep for the gazelle. Since they judged this at different times and in different lands, it indicates that it is not by way of value. Furthermore, if it were by way of value, they would have considered the attributes of the destroyed animal upon which the value differs, either by seeing it or by being informed of it, yet no questions regarding this were reported from them at the time of judgment. Additionally, they judged a sheep for the pigeon, and its value does not reach (31) the value of a sheep in most cases. Once this is established, the intent is not actual equivalence, for that is not achievable between livestock and game, but rather equivalence by way of form is intended. The destroyed game is of two types: the first is that which the Companions have already ruled upon, so the ruling they made is mandatory. This is the view of Ata', al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. Malik said: The judgment on it should be initiated [anew], because Allah the Almighty said: {Judge by it two just men among you} (29). Our argument is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "My companions are like the stars; whichever of them you follow, you will be guided" (32). And he said: "Follow the two who come after me: Abu Bakr and Umar" (33). Furthermore, they are closer to the truth and more knowledgeable, so their judgment is a proof against others, like the scholar in relation to the layman. The judgment of theirs which has reached us [is: for the hyena, there is a ram].