just as if he released it at large ones and they scattered away from small ones, according to Malik, or as if it took game in its path, according to al-Shafi'i. And because it is not possible to train the hunting beast to hunt one specific thing to the exclusion of another, its consideration is discarded. As for if he releases his arrow or hunting beast while seeing no game, and not knowing of it, and it then hunts, its game is not lawful because he did not intend game, and because intention cannot be realized for that which one does not know. This is what al-Shafi'i said regarding the dog. Al-Hasan and Mu'awiyah ibn Qurra said: He may eat it, due to the generality of the verse and the report, and because he intended hunting, so what it hunted becomes lawful for him, as if he had seen it. Our position is that the intention of game is a condition, and intention is not valid without knowledge, so it is like the case where he did not intend game.

Section: If he sees a black shape, or hears a sound, and thinks it is a human, or a beast, or a stone, and shoots at it and kills it, then it turns out to be game, it is not permitted. This is the view of Malik and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. Abu Hanifa said: It is permitted. Al-Shafi'i said: It is permitted if what was released was an arrow, and it is not permitted if it was a hunting beast. Those who permitted it argued by the generality of the verse and the report, and because he intended hunting and mentioned the name of Allah, so it is like the case where he knew it was game. Our position is that he did not intend the game, so it is not permitted, just as if he shot at a target and hit game, and just as is the case with a hunting beast according to al-Shafi'i. If he thought it was a dog or a pig, it is not permitted, for that same reason. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: It is permitted, because it is something whose killing is permitted. Our position is what has preceded. As for if he thought it was game, it is lawful, because he thought there was game, so it is like the case where he saw it. If he doubted whether it was game or not, or he thought it most likely that it was not game, it is not permitted, because the validity of intention is built upon knowledge, and that was not found. If he shot a stone thinking it was game, and it killed game, Abu al-Khattab said: It is not permitted, because he did not intend game in reality. It is possible that it be permitted, because the validity of intention is built upon speculation (zann), and it was found, so his intention was valid, and thus it should be the case that his game is lawful.

1709 - Issue; he said: (And if he shoots it, and it disappears from his sight, then he finds it dead, with his arrow in it, and there is no mark on it other than it, its consumption is lawful.)

This is the well-known position of Ahmad, and likewise if he releases his dog at game, and it disappears from his sight, then