They differed if a group of forbidden people participated in the killing of a game, so it was said that each one had a penalty, and it was said that they had one penalty, and what I say is that if each one of the partners knew that he had hit him in the killing, there is a penalty for everyone who hit him in the killing, and whoever injured him without killing, there is no penalty for him and he is a sinner where he was exposed He is harmed when the congregation is forbidden to him here, as a person sins with all of his eight limbs, then every member must repent in terms of that member. Al-Haram, so he said in the forbidden, there is a penalty for each of them, and he said in the two places there is one penalty

( Arrived in the chapter: Can one of the two judges be a killer for hunting )

Some people went to the view that it is not permissible, and some people permitted it. So whoever sees that there is no doer but God, and He is the Ruler, and He is the Doer, he permitted it.

( Connected in the chapter on their differences regarding the place of feeding )

It was said that he is fed in the place where the hunting was killed, if there was food, or in the nearest place to it, if there is nothing to be fed. And whoever was kissed by the house was determined

( Connected in the chapter of their disagreement on the spot that the game is killed in the sanctuary after their unanimity that if the forbidden kills the game that he must be punished )

Some people said, He will be rewarded. People said, There is nothing against him, and with him I say.

( He arrived during the Muharram season, kills the game and eats it )

Whoever says that he has one expiation, and with it I say, and it was said that he has two expiations, and with it, he said, Ata and there is a face to it in my view, then the Sharia considers it. ?

the right of himself that he should not feed her except what she has a right to .

When the one who eats himself strives and from the right of himself over him that he does not feed her except what she has a right to, and what she does not have a right to, then he has wronged her, so the recompense of the one who wronged himself is rewarded.

( Arrived in the chapter on ransom for harm )

The scholars unanimously agreed that it is obligatory for those who remove harm from a necessity, and it is the obligation to curse those who harm God and His Messenger.

[ Speaking about God that should not cause harm, so I must remove it ]

Speech about God that should not cause harm, so his removal is a sanctity of the truth, and there is no actor but God, so penance was required, and it is concealment for this ratio, that no such action should be added to God Almighty and Exalted be He. People who have blood on him, and I say that he is not harmed in himself, that is, he is not in pain for that. Therefore, he made the place of harm the head that is felt, and what he made of hair, so what is then a necessity that necessitates shaving.

[ Man is created in the image ]

Since the human being is created in the image, it is necessary to remove the harm from him due to the relation with him, and penance is required for what God has enjoined upon him to do or permitted for him so that the feeling of harm does not distract him from the remembrance of God.

It is reported that no one is more patient with harm than God

Thus, he was called the patient, and without being blamed for being powerful, he was called the Halim

(Connected in a chapter) Their disagreement is whether there is a condition for the one upon whom the ransom is required to remove the harm

Whether it is intentional or the forgetful and the intentional is the same, and some people said they are the same and others said that there is no ransom for the person, and I say that the forgetful here is the one who forgets his ihraam, and both of them are intentional to remove the harm. In Ihram, and if he forgets Ihram, then what is mentioned in the mention of the one who is in Ihram, then he is gathered together to remove the harm and forget the Ihram, so it was