In knowing how many secrets are revealed to the viewer when interviewing and deviating, and how much he deviates from the interview

They disagreed: If a group of ihrams participate in killing a game animal, then it is said that each one is subject to a penalty, and it is said that they are subject to one penalty. What I say is that if each of the accomplices knew that he had struck it in killing, there would be a penalty for whoever struck it in killing it, and whoever wounded it in other than killing, there is no penalty for him, and it is He is a sinner in that he is harmed for what the group has forbidden to him. Here, since a person sins with all of his eight members, he must repent for each member in terms of that member. And whoever sees repentance on the part of the one who repents to him, not what he has repented from, then he is the one who says there is one punishment. Some of them differentiated between those forbidden who kill game and those who hunt. They kill game in the sanctuary. He said that there is a penalty for each one of them in the sacred places, and he said that there is one penalty for

( It was included in the chapter: Can one of the two arbitrators kill the game? )

Some people held that it is not permissible, and some people permitted it. Whoever saw that there is no actor but God and He is the Ruler and He is the doer, he permitted that, and whoever saw that the action is for the creature did not permit that. In the first, I say and prove the second opinion in a way other than what the one who said it believes < /p>

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

It was said that it should be fed in the place where the game was killed if there was food, or in the place closest to it if there was nothing to feed. Some of them said that wherever it is fed, it is sufficient, and I say that because God has not appointed. Some of them said that it should not be fed except the poor people of Mecca, whoever it is. God, His Qiblah, did not assign food to a specific place, and whoever’s Qiblah was the House, He specified

( He arrived during the Muharram season, killing game and eating it. )

So whoever said that he has to make one expiation, and that is what I say, and it was said that he has two expiations, and that is, he said, “Ata’, and there is a reason for it in my opinion, then the Sharia considers it, and it is not permissible to eat it except for the one who did not help him in any way, so it is more correct if he is the killer, then it is forbidden for him to eat it, hunting it just as it was forbidden for him to eat it.” Killing him, these are three things that are forbidden: hunting, killing, and eating .

[ He has a right over himself not to feed her except what she has a right to .]

Since the one who eats for himself strives, and it is his self’s right that he does not feed her except what she has a right to and what she has no right to, then he has wronged her, so what is the reward for one who wrongs himself ?

( Linked in the chapter on ransom for harm )

Scholars have unanimously agreed that it is obligatory for one who commits harm out of necessity, which is the obligation of cursing those who harm God and His Messenger, so the harm must be repelled out of the sanctity of the ihram, and expiation is obligatory out of the sanctity of the ihram

[ Speaking about God in a way that should not cause harm, so it is necessary to suppress it .]

Speaking about God in a way that should not cause harm, so it is obligatory to remove it as a sanctity for the truth, and there is no doer but God, so expiation is required, which is the concealment of this lineage, such that such an act is not added to God Almighty, and the expiations are all concealments wherever they occur. They differed as to the one who removes harm without necessity, so some people said that he must pay the ransom. And some people said that there is blood on it, and I say that it is not harmed in itself, that is, it is not painful for that reason. Therefore, he made the place of harm the head that feels it, and he did not make it the hair, so there is no necessity that necessitates shaving .

[ Man is created in the image ]

Since man was created according to the image, it is obligatory to remove harm from him due to care for him, and expiation is obligatory for what God has obligated him to do or permitted for him so that the feeling of harm does not distract him from the remembrance of God, and Hajj is not prescribed except for the remembrance of God, so expiation is obligatory since he was not patient with the harm, so what is in the form is due.

It has been reported that no one is more patient in the face of harm than God.

Hence, he is called the Patient, and by not taking blame while being able, he is called the Forbearing .

( arrived in chapter )

Their disagreement: Is there a condition for the one upon whom a ransom is required to remove harm ?

That he be intentional, or is he forgetful? And the intentional person is the same. Some people said they are the same, and others said there is no ransom on the forgetful person. This is what I say, and the forgetful person here is the one who forgot his ihram, and both of them are intentional about causing harm. So if it is obligatory on the one in need. And he is the one who intended to remove it to remove the harm while remembering the ihram, so it is obligatory for the forgetful person because he is commanded to do the dhikr that is specific to the ihram, so if he forgets the ihram, then he does not bring the dhikr that was for the ihram, so he combined to remove the harm and forget the ihram, so it was.