al-Mundhir. There is a disagreement regarding it attributed to Ata', because it is a beast of prey, and the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade every beast of prey with a fang. If we deem the penalty obligatory for it, it shall be a sheep, for that has been narrated from Ata'. There is a difference of opinion regarding the cat, whether it is domesticated or wild, and the correct view is that there is no penalty for it. This is the choice of the Qadi, because it is a beast of prey and is not edible. Al-Thawri and Ishaq said: For the wild one there is a valuation (hukuma), and there is nothing for the domesticated one; because game is that which is wild. There is a difference of opinion regarding the hoopoe (hudhud) and the shrike (surad) due to the two conflicting narrations concerning their permissibility. Everything about whose permissibility there is disagreement, there is also disagreement regarding its penalty. As for what is forbidden, the correct view is that there is no penalty for it because it is contrary to qiyas (analogical reasoning) and there is no text concerning it.
The second condition is that it be wild. That which is not wild, its slaughter or consumption is not forbidden for the muhrim (pilgrim in ihram), such as all livestock, horses, chickens, and the like. We know of no disagreement among the scholars regarding this. The consideration in that regard is based on the origin, not the current state. If a wild animal becomes domesticated, the penalty for it remains obligatory. Likewise, the penalty is obligatory for pigeons, both their domesticated and wild types, in consideration of their origin. And if a domesticated animal becomes wild, nothing is due for it. Ahmad said regarding a cow that became wild: "There is nothing for it, because the origin of it is the domesticated." If an offspring is born from a wild animal and a domesticated one, the penalty is due for it, prioritizing the prohibition, as we stated regarding that which is born of a cross between the permissible and the forbidden. There is a difference of opinion regarding the Sindi chicken; is there a penalty for it? There are two narrations. Muhanna narrated from Ahmad regarding the duck,
(16) Reported by al-Bukhari, in: The Chapter of Donkey Milk, from the Book of Medicine. Sahih al-Bukhari 7/181. And Muslim, in: The Chapter of the Prohibition of Eating Every Beast of Prey with a Fang..., from the Book of Hunting. Sahih Muslim 3/1533. And Abu Dawud, in: The Chapter on the Prohibition of Eating Beasts of Prey, from the Book of Food. Sunan Abi Dawud 2/319. And al-Tirmidhi, in: The Chapter of what has been said regarding the dislike of eating a beast killed by binding (al-masbura), from the Chapters of Hunting, and in: The Chapter of what has been said regarding the meat of domesticated donkeys, and the Chapter of what has been said regarding eating from the vessels of the disbelievers, from the Chapters of Food. Aridat al-Ahwadhi 6/266, 7/297, 298. And Imam Ahmad, in: al-Musnad 1/147, 4/193, 194. (17) Al-Sinnawr: The cat. (18) Al-Surad: (rhyming with Umar) a type of crow; the plural is surdan. (19) In the original: "Muhammad."
المُنْذِرِ. واخْتُلِفَ فيه عن عَطاءٍ؛ لأنَّه سَبُعٌ، وقد نَهَى النَّبِىُّ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- عن كلِّ ذِى نَابٍ من السِّبَاعِ (١٦). وإذا أوْجَبْنَا فيه الجَزاءَ، ففيه شاةٌ؛ لأنَّه رُوِىَ ذلك عن عَطاءٍ. واخْتَلَفَتِ الرِّوَايَةُ فى السِّنَّوْرِ (١٧)، أهْلِيًّا كان أو وَحْشِيًّا، والصَّحِيحُ أنَّه لا جَزاءَ فيه. وهو اخْتِيارُ القاضى؛ لأنَّه سَبُعٌ، وليس بِمَأْكُولٍ. وقال الثَّوْرِىُّ، وإسحاقُ: فى الوَحْشِىِّ حُكُومَةٌ، ولا شَىْءَ فى الأهْلِىِّ؛ لأنَّ الصَّيْدَ ما كان وَحْشِيًّا. واخْتَلَفَتِ الرِّوَايَةُ فى الهُدْهُدِ والصُّرَدِ (١٨)؛ لاخْتِلَافِ الرِّوَايَتَيْنِ في إباحَتِهِما، وكلُّ ما اخْتُلِفَ فى إباحَتِه يُخْتَلَفُ فى جَزائِه، فأمَّا ما يَحرُمُ، فالصَّحِيحُ أنَّه لا جَزاءَ فيه؛ لأنَّه مُخَالِفٌ لِلْقِياسِ، ولا نَصَّ فيه. الوصف الثانى، أن يكونَ وَحْشِيًّا، وما ليس بِوَحْشِىٍّ لا يَحْرُمُ على المُحْرِمِ ذَبْحُهُ ولا أكْلُه، كبَهِيمَةِ الأنْعامِ كلِّها، والخَيْلِ، والدَّجَاجِ، ونَحْوِها. لا نَعْلَمُ بين أهْلِ العِلْمِ فى هذا خِلافًا، والاعْتِبَارُ فى ذلك بالأصْلِ، لا بالحالِ، فلو اسْتَأْنَسَ الوَحْشِىّ وَجَبَ فيه الجَزاءُ، وكذلِك وَجَبَ الجَزاءُ فى الحَمامِ أهْلِيِّه ووَحْشِيِّه، اعْتِبَارًا بِأصْلِه. ولو تَوَحَّشَ الأهْلِىُّ لم يَجِبْ فيه شىءٌ. قال أحمدُ، فى بَقَرَةٍ صارَتْ وَحْشِيَّةً: لا شىءَ فيها؛ لأنَّ الأصْلَ فيها الإِنْسِىُّ. وإن تَوَلَّدَ من الوَحْشِىِّ والأهْلِىِّ وَلَدٌ، ففيه الجَزاءُ، تَغْلِيبًا لِلتَّحْرِيمِ، كقَوْلِنا فى المُتَوَلِّدِ بين المُباحِ والمُحَرَّمِ. واخْتَلَفَتِ الرِّوَايَةُ فى الدَّجَاجِ السِّنْدِيِّ، هل فيه جَزَاءٌ؟ على رِوَايَتَيْنِ. ورَوَى مُهَنَّا (١٩)، عن أحمدَ، فى البَطِّ،
(١٦) أخرجه البخارى، فى: باب ألبان الأتن، من كتاب الطب. صحيح البخارى ٧/ ١٨١. ومسلم، فى: باب تحريم أكل كل ذى ناب من السباع. . .، من كتاب الصيد. صحيح مسلم ٣/ ١٥٣٣. وأبو داود، فى: باب النهى عن أكل السباع، من كتاب الأطعمة. سنن أبى داود ٢/ ٣١٩. والترمذى، فى: باب ما جاء فى كراهية أكل المصبورة، من أبواب الصيد، وفى: باب ما جاء في لحوم الحمر الأهلية، وباب ما جاء فى الأكل فى آنية الكفار، من أبواب الأطعمة. عارضة الأحوذى ٦/ ٢٦٦، ٧/ ٢٩٧، ٢٩٨. والإِمام أحمد، فى: المسند ١/ ١٤٧، ٤/ ١٩٣، ١٩٤.(١٧) السنور: الهِرُّ.(١٨) الصُّردُ؛ وزان عُمَر: نوع من الغربان، والجمع صِرْدان.(١٩) فى الأصل: "محمد".
