He said: {So eat of what they catch for you}. This refers only to what it caught for itself. As for the hadith of Abu Tha'labah, Ahmad has said: They differ concerning it from Hushaym. Moreover, our hadith is more authentic because it is agreed upon, and 'Adi ibn Hatim is more precise, and his wording is clearer, as he mentioned the ruling and the underlying cause. Ahmad said: The hadith of al-Sha'bi from 'Adi is among the most authentic of what has been narrated from the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - and al-Sha'bi says: He was my neighbor and my associate, and he narrated it to me. And the practice is in accordance with it. It is possible that it ate from it after it had killed it and moved away from it. Once this is established, what it hunted previously is not forbidden, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars. Abu Hanifa said: It is forbidden, because had it been trained, it would not have eaten. Our evidence is the generality of the verse and the reports. Only what it ate from is specifically excluded (44), so for what is beyond that, one must rule by the generality. Furthermore, the combination of the conditions of training is realized (45), so the ruling must follow it, which is why we judged the permissibility of its catch. If eating is found, it is possible that it was due to forgetfulness, or [excessive hunger] (46), or that it forgot the training; thus, that which is established with certainty is not abandoned due to a possibility.

Section: If it drinks its blood, but does not eat from it, it is not forbidden. Ahmad has explicitly stated this. This is the opinion of 'Ata', al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the People of Reason (Ahl al-Ra'y). Al-Sha'bi and al-Thawri disliked it because it is in the meaning of eating. Our evidence is the generality of the verse and the reports, and only that which it ate from (47) is excluded by the hadith of 'Adi: "If it eats from it, then do not eat." This one did not eat. Also, the hunter does not intend the blood to be from it, nor does he benefit from it, so it does not depart by its drinking from being a catcher for its hunter.

Section: What the dog hunted after the hunt from which it ate is not forbidden. The statement of al-Khiraqi may imply that it ceases to be considered trained, and thus the conditions of training are reconsidered from the beginning. The first view is more appropriate due to what we mentioned regarding its catch before the eating. The sixth condition is that it must wound the game; if it suffocates it or kills it by its impact, it is not permitted. Al-Sharif said: This is the opinion of the majority of them. Al-Shafi'i said, in one of his opinions: It is permitted, due to the generality of the verse and the report. Our evidence is that it killed it without wounding, so it is similar to what it killed with a stone or a pellet, and because Allah