dead." And because this severing does not, by custom, prevent the animal from remaining alive, the eating of the severed part is not permitted, just as if the hunter caught up to it while it still possessed stable life. The first [narration] is the famous one, because what serves as a ritual slaughter for a part of the animal serves as a ritual slaughter for the whole of it, just as if he had cut it into two halves. The report implies that what remains must be alive so that what is separated from it is considered dead, and we say the same. Abu al-Khattab said: If it remains attached by its skin, it is lawful, according to a single narration.

A section: Ahmad said: Hushaym narrated to us, from Mansur, from al-Hasan, that he saw no harm in the 'taridah' (chased prey); Muslims used to do this during their military expeditions, and people have continued [to do so] during their expeditions. Abu Abd Allah considered this good. He said: The 'taridah' is prey that falls [to be caught] between a group of people, so one of them severs a piece from it with his sword, and another does the same, until they dispatch it while it is alive. He said: To me, it is nothing other than that the prey falls between them, and they are unable to slaughter it [ritually], so they take it in pieces.

1713 - Issue; He said: (And likewise if he sets up sickles for hunting.)

Its summary is that if he sets up sickles [or similar cutting implements] for hunting, and mentions the name of Allah over them, and they wound a prey or kill it, it is lawful. If a limb is severed from it, its ruling is the ruling of what is severed by a hunter's blow. Something similar to this has been narrated from Ibn Umar, and it is the view of al-Hasan and Qatadah. Al-Shafi'i said: It is not permitted in any case, because no one performed the ritual slaughter upon it; rather, the sickles killed it by themselves, and there was nothing from the hunter except the cause. This runs the same course as one who sets up a knife, and it [the knife] slaughters a sheep. Furthermore, if he shoots an arrow without seeing a prey, and it kills a prey, it is not lawful, so this is even more deserving of that ruling. Our position is the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Eat what your hand has held back for you." And because he killed the prey with an iron blade in the customary manner, it is similar to if he had shot it with it, and because he intended the killing of the prey with that which has a blade and which is customary to hunt with. It is similar to what we have mentioned, and the cause acts as the direct action in [terms of] liability, so it is the same in the permissibility of the hunt. It differs from the case where he sets up a knife, for it is not customary to hunt with it. And if he shoots an arrow without seeing a prey, that is not customary, and the default is that it will not hit a prey, so his intention was not sound, and this is contrary to that.