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