more appropriate, and because the egg has no equivalent, its value is therefore obligatory, like the small of birds. If it has no value because it is rotten, or because the fledgling within it is dead, then there is nothing due for it. Our companions said: Except for ostrich eggs, for its shell has value. The correct view is that there is nothing due for it, because if it does not contain a living animal, nor is it on the path to becoming one, it becomes like stones and wood and other things that have value outside of game. Do you not see that if one were to puncture an egg and remove what is inside, he would be liable for its full penalty? Then, if he or another person were to break it, he would not be liable for anything for that. Whoever breaks an egg and a live fledgling emerges from it and survives, there is nothing due for it. But if it dies, then the penalty is the same as that for the young of the animal whose egg was destroyed. Thus, for a pigeon fledgling, the penalty is the young of sheep; for an ostrich chick, it is a young camel; and for other than these two, its value is due. It is not permissible for a muhrim (one in the state of ihram) to eat game eggs if he or another muhrim broke them. If a non-muhrim breaks them, they are like game meat; if he took them for the sake of the muhrim, eating them is not permitted, otherwise it is permitted. If he breaks game eggs, it does not become forbidden for the non-muhrim, because its lawfulness does not depend on the breaking, nor is legal capacity required for it. In fact, if a Magian, an idolater, or someone who did not mention the name of Allah upon it were to break it, it would not become forbidden, so it is similar to cutting and cooking meat. The Qadi said: It is forbidden for both the non-muhrim and the muhrim to eat it, just as if one were to slaughter the game, because its breaking follows the same rule as slaughtering, evidenced by the fact that it is lawful for a muhrim if a non-muhrim breaks it for him. If one moves game eggs and places them under another [bird], or leaves other eggs with the game eggs, or something such that it causes the bird to flee from its eggs until they spoil, he is liable for compensation, because they perished due to his action. If they remain sound and hatch, he is not liable. If the game lays eggs

on its nest and he moves them carefully but they spoil, there are two opinions, based on the ruling regarding locusts if they spread in his path. The ruling on locust eggs is the same as the ruling on locusts. If he milks the milk of game, he is liable for its value, just as if he milked the milk of usurped livestock.

Section: If a muhrim plucks the feathers of a bird, he is liable for what it has diminished. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. Malik and Abu Hanifa held that the full penalty is obligatory for it. Our argument is that he caused a deficiency that can be remedied, so he is not liable for the whole, just as if he had wounded it. If he guards it, feeds it, and gives it water until its feathers return, there is no liability, because the deficiency has vanished, making it similar to a healed wound. It is said: He owes the value of the feathers because the latter ones are not the same as the first. If it becomes unable to escape due to the plucking of its feathers, and it heals while still unable to escape, he is liable for the full penalty, like a wound. If it disappears without having healed, he is liable for the deficiency, just like a wound; we have already mentioned a possibility there, and so it is the same here.

686 - Issue: He said: "Except if it is an ostrich, for in that there is a young camel, or a pigeon, or what is similar to it, then for each of them there is a sheep."

This relates to his statement: "And if it is a bird, he shall ransom it with its value in its location." He excepted the ostrich from the "bird" because it has two wings and lays eggs, so it is like chickens and geese. He made a young camel obligatory for it because Umar, Ali, Uthman, Zayd ibn Thabit, Ibn Abbas, and Mu'awiya, may Allah be pleased with them, ruled for a young camel in its case. This is the opinion of Ata, Mujahid, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and most scholars. It is narrated from al-Nakha'i that its value is due in it, and this is the opinion of