1707 - Issue: He said: (And if he sends his dog, and it hits another [game] with it, it shall not be eaten unless it is reached while still alive and is then slaughtered.)
The meaning of the issue is that he sends his dog after a prey, then finds the prey dead, and finds with his dog another dog whose condition he does not know, and he does not know whether the conditions for the permissibility of its hunting were met in it or not, and he does not know which of them killed it; or he knows that they both killed it, or that its killer was the unknown dog. In that case, it is not permissible, unless he reaches it alive and slaughters it. This was stated by Ata, al-Qasim ibn Mukhaymira, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the people of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). We know of no one who differs from them. The basis for this is what Adi ibn Hatim reported, saying: I asked the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and said: "I send my dog and find another dog with it?" He said: "Do not eat, for you only mentioned the name of Allah over your dog, and you did not mention it over the other." In another wording: "If you find another dog with your dog, and you fear that it took it with it and killed it, then do not eat it, for you only mentioned the name of Allah over your dog." And in another wording: "For you do not know which of them killed [it]." Reported by al-Bukhari. This is because he is in doubt regarding the permissible hunting; therefore, the ruling of prohibition must be maintained. However, if he knows that it was his dog that killed it alone, or that the other dog is of the type whose hunting is permissible, it is permitted, as indicated by the reasoning for its prohibition: "For you only mentioned the name of Allah over your dog, and you did not mention it over the other," and his saying: "For you do not know which of them killed it." Also, because he does not doubt the permissibility, it does not become prohibited, just as if he had sent both dogs and mentioned the name of Allah. If he were ignorant of the state of the dog that joined his dog, and then it became clear to him that the name of Allah had been mentioned over it and that all conditions were met in it, the game would become lawful. Even if he had believed in its lawfulness due to his ignorance of the other's participation with it, or due to his belief that it was a dog
(1) In (M): "fa-adafa" (and added). (2) Omitted from (M). (3) Abu Urwa al-Qasim ibn Mukhaymira al-Hamdani al-Kufi, a resident of Damascus; he was a trustworthy Tabi'i who narrated some hadiths. He died in Damascus during the caliphate of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, 5/201-204. (4) In the manuscripts: "akhadha" (took). (5) In (M): "minhu" (from it). (6) Its authentication was provided previously, on page 257.
١٧٠٧ - مسألة؛ قال: (وإِذَا أَرْسَلَ كَلْبَهُ، فَأَصَابَ (١) مَعَه غَيْرَهُ، لَمْ يُؤْكَلْ إِلَّا أَنْ يُدْرَكَ فى الْحَيَاةِ، فيُذَكَّى)
مَعْنَى المسألَةِ أَنْ يُرْسِلَ كَلْبَه على صَيْدٍ، فيَجِدَ الصَّيدَ مَيِّتًا، ويجدَ مع كَلْبِه كَلْبًا لا يعرفُ حالَه، ولا يَدْرِى هل وُجدَتْ فيه شرائِطُ إباحَةِ (٢) صَيْدِه أو لا، ولا يَعْلَمُ أيُّهما قَتَلَهُ؟ أو يَعْلَمُ أنَّهما جميعًا قَتَلاه، أو أَنَّ قاتِلَه الكلبُ المجهولُ، فإنَّه لا يُباحُ؛ إلَّا أَنْ يُدْرِكَه حَيًّا فيُذَكِّيَهُ. وبهذا قال عطاءٌ، والقاسِمُ بن مُخَيْمِرَةَ (٣)، ومالكٌ، والشافِعِىُّ، وأبو ثَوْرٍ، وأصْحابُ الرَّأْىِ. ولا نَعْلَمُ لهم مخالِفًا. والأصْلُ فيه ما رَوَى عَدِىُّ بن حاتم قال: سأَلْتُ رسولَ اللَّه -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- فقلتُ: أُرْسِلُ كَلْبِى فأَجِدُ معه كَلْبًا آخرَ؟ قال: "لَا تَأْكُلْ، فَإِنَّكَ إِنَّما سَمَّيْتَ عَلَى كَلْبِكَ، ولَمْ تُسَمِّ عَلَى الآخَرِ". وفى لفظ: "فَإِنْ وَجَدْتَ مَعَ كَلْبِك كَلْبًا آخَرَ، فَخَشِيتَ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَخَذَه (٤) مَعَهُ (٥)، وقَدْ قَتَلَهُ، فَلَا تَأْكُلْه، فَإِنَّك إنَّما ذَكَرْتَ اسْمَ اللَّهِ عَلَى كَلْبِكَ". وفى لفْظٍ: "فَإِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِى أيُّهما قَتَل". أَخْرَجَه البُخارِىُّ (٦). ولأنَّه شَكَّ فى الاصْطِيادِ المبيحِ، فوجَبَ إبْقاءُ حُكْمِ التَّحْرِيمِ، فأمَّا إنْ عَلِمَ أَنَّ كَلْبَه الذى قَتَلَ وَحْدَه، أو أَنَّ الكَلْبَ الآخرَ ممَّا يُباحُ صَيْدُه، أُبِيحَ، بدلالَةِ تَعْليلِ تَحْرِيمِه: "فَإِنَّكَ إنَّما سَمَّيْتَ عَلَى كَلْبِكَ، وَلَم تُسَمِّ عَلَى الْآخَرِ". وقولِه: "فَإِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِى أَيُّهُما قَتَل". ولأنَّه لم يشُكَّ فى المُبِيحِ، فلم يَحْرُمْ، كما لو كان هو أرْسَلَ الكَلْبَيْن وسَمَّى. ولو جهلَ حالَ الكلبِ المُشارِكِ لكلبِه، ثم انْكَشَفَ له أنَّه مُسَمًّى عليه، مُجْتَمِعةٌ فيه الشَّرائِطُ، حَلَّ الصَّيْدُ، ولو اعتَقَدَ حِلَّه لجهْلِه بمُشارَكَةِ الآخَرِ له، أو لاعْتِقادِه أنَّه كلبٌ
(١) فى م: "فأضاف".(٢) سقط من: م.(٣) أبو عروة القاسم بن مخيمرة الهمدانى الكوفى، نزيل دمشق، تابعى ثقة، له أحاديث، توفى فى خلافة عمر بن عبد العزيز بدمشق. سير أعلام النبلاء ٥/ ٢٠١ - ٢٠٤.(٤) فى النسخ: "أخذ".(٥) فى م: "منه".(٦) تقدم تخريجه، فى صفحة ٢٥٧.
