or find that it has begun to stink (salla)." Narrated by Abu Dawud. From Abu Tha'laba, from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), that he said: "If you shoot game and catch up to it after three days while your arrow is in it, then eat it, provided it has not putrefied." Because wounding it with his arrow is the cause for its permissibility, and this has been found with certainty, while its opponent is a matter of doubt, so we do not abandon certainty for doubt. Furthermore, because he found it with his arrow in it and did not find any other mark on it, it is like the case where he did not cease searching for it according to Abu Hanifa, or like if it was absent for a day, or a short period, or like if it did not disappear at all.

Once this is established, two conditions are required for its lawfulness: first, that he finds his arrow in it, or its mark, and knows that it is the mark of his arrow; because if it is not so, he is in doubt regarding the existence of the factor of permissibility, and it cannot be established through doubt. The second is that he does not find on it any mark other than the mark of his arrow, such that it might be suspected that [the other mark] killed it; according to the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Provided you do not find in it a mark other than your arrow." In another wording: "And if you find on it a mark other than your arrow, then do not eat it, for you do not know whether you killed it or someone else did." Narrated by al-Daraqutni. In another wording: "If you find your arrow in it, and a beast of prey has not eaten from it, then eat from it." Narrated by al-Nasa'i. In the hadith of 'Adi, it is stated that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "If you shoot game, and find it after a day or two, and there is nothing on it but the mark of your arrow, then eat."

1710- Issue; He said: (And if he shoots it, and it falls into water, or falls from a mountain, it shall not be eaten.)

Meaning, it falls into water that would kill an animal like it, or it falls in a way that would kill an animal like it. There is no difference in the view of al-Khiraqi between the wound being mortal or non-mortal. This is the well-known position of Ahmad, and the manifest view of Ibn Mas'ud, Ata', Rabi'a, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Most of our later companions say: If the wound was mortal, such as if he slaughtered it or its innards were eviscerated, then falling into water or falling from a height does not harm it. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, Malik, al-Layth, Qatada, and Abu Thawr; because it has reached the status of a dead animal through the slaughter, so what happens to it afterwards has no effect. The basis for the first view is his saying: "And if it falls into water, do not eat." And because it is possible that the water contributed to the departure of its soul, so it becomes equivalent to the case where the wound was not mortal, and there is no disagreement regarding its prohibition if the wound was not mortal. If the animal falls into water in a way that does not kill it, such as its head being out of the water, or it is a water bird that is not killed by water, or if the fall would not kill such an animal, then there is no disagreement regarding its permissibility, because the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "If you find it drowned in water, do not eat it." And because falling into water and falling from a height were only forbidden for fear that it might be the killer or contributed to the killing, and this is negated in the case we mentioned.

Section: If he shoots a bird in the air, or on a tree, or a mountain, and it falls to the ground,