have any punishment for them. The killing of game is of two types: permissible and prohibited. Prohibited is killing it initially without a reason that makes its killing permissible, and for this, there is a penalty. Permissible is of three types: The first is when one is compelled to eat it, in which case it is permissible for him without any disagreement that we know of; for Allah the Exalted said: "And do not throw [yourselves] with your own hands into destruction" (Al-Baqarah: 195). Refraining from eating while capable, in a state of necessity, is throwing oneself into destruction, and whenever one kills it, one is liable, regardless of whether he found something else [to eat] or not. Al-Awza’i said: He is not liable, because it is permissible, similar to sea game. Our argument is the generality of the verse, and that it is killing without any meaning arising from the game that warrants its killing, so he is liable for it just like anything else, and because he destroyed it to ward off harm from himself and not for any reason inherent in it, similar to shaving one’s hair due to harm on one's head. The second type is if a game animal attacks him and he cannot repel it except by killing it; it is permissible for him to kill it, and there is no penalty upon him. This is the opinion of al-Shafi’i. Abu Bakr said: There is a penalty upon him. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, because he killed it for his own need, similar to killing it for his need to eat it. Our argument is that it is an animal that he killed to repel its evil, so he is not liable, like an aggressive human, and because it has become included with those things that are naturally harmful, so it becomes like a biting dog, and there is no difference between fearing destruction from it or fearing harm from it, such as it wounding him, or destroying his property, or some of his animals. The third type is if one saves a game animal from a beast of prey or a hunter's net, or takes it to remove a thread from its leg or similar, and it dies as a result; there is no liability upon him. This is the opinion of ‘Ata’. It is also said: Liability is upon him. This is the opinion of Qatadah, due to the generality of the verse, and because the most that can be said about it is that he lacked the intent to kill it, so it resembles killing by mistake. Our argument is that it is an act permitted for the welfare of the animal, so he is not liable for what died as a result, just as if a guardian of an orphan treated the orphan and he died as a result, and this is not intentional, so the verse does not encompass it. The second section is that there is no difference between mistake and intent in killing game regarding the obligation of the penalty, according to one of the two narrations. This is the opinion of al-Hasan, ‘Ata’, al-Nakha’i, Malik, al-Thawri, and al-Shafi’i.