the school of Al-Shafi'i; because its value is greater than the value of its meat. Abu al-Khattab said: He guarantees it with a pregnant animal of its like, because Allah, the Exalted, said: "the penalty is an equivalent of what he killed of the livestock." Requiring the value is a deviation from the "equivalent" while it is possible to provide. If he pays for it with a non-pregnant animal, it is possibly permissible, because this attribute does not increase its meat, but rather might decrease it; therefore, its presence is not required in the equivalent, like color and defect. If he commits a violation against a pregnant animal and destroys its fetus, and it comes out dead, he is liable for what its mother has diminished, just as if he had wounded her. If it comes out alive for a duration in which its like would live and then dies, he guarantees it with its equivalent. If it is for a duration in which its like would not live, it is like the dead one, similar to the fetus of a human female.

Section: If he destroys a part of the game (al-sayd), its guarantee becomes obligatory, because its whole is guaranteed, so its part is also guaranteed, like a human or property. This is also because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Its game shall not be startled" (57). Wounding is even more deserving of the prohibition, and the prohibition implies its unlawfulness. Whatever of the game is unlawful, its guarantee is obligatory like its self. It is guaranteed with its equivalent from its like, according to one of the two opinions; because what is obligatory to guarantee its whole by an equivalent, its part must also be guaranteed by its equivalent, like measurable goods. The other opinion is that the value of its portion from its equivalent is obligatory, because it is difficult to extract the penalty (jaza'), so requiring it is precluded (58). For this (59) reason, the Legislator turned away from requiring a part of a camel in the case of five camels to (60) requiring a sheep, which is of a different genus than camels. The first view is more appropriate, because the hardship here is not established, due to the option available to him to deviate from the equivalent to its substitute of food or fasting, so the obstacle is negated, and the requirement of the original principle is established. This is if the game heals and becomes capable of avoiding harm. If it heals but remains incapable, he guarantees all of it, because he has rendered it disabled, so it becomes like the destroyed one, and because it leads to its destruction, so it becomes like one who wounds it with a wound that is certain to cause its death. This is the school of Abu Hanifa. It is derived that