Section: If one shoots game and hits it, and it remains in a state of incapacitation until it enters someone's house and he takes it, it belongs to the one who took it, because the first did not own it, as it was still capable of fleeing, so the second came to own it by taking it. If one shoots a bird on a tree in the courtyard of a group of people, and it falls into their courtyard and they take it, it belongs to the shooter, not them, because he owned it by removing its capacity to flee.

Section: Our companions said: If game becomes caught in a person's trap or net, he owns it, because he has secured it with his tool. If someone else takes it, he is obliged to return it to him, because his tool secured it, making it similar to the case where he secured it with his arrow. If the net does not hold it, but it escapes from it immediately or after a while, he does not own it, because he did not secure it. If it takes the net and escapes with it, and someone else hunts it, he owns it, and he returns the net to its owner because he did not secure it. If it moves with the net in a manner where it cannot flee, it belongs to its owner because the net removed its capacity to flee. If the hunter catches it and his hand is firmly upon it, then it escapes from him, his ownership of it does not cease, because it became capable of fleeing from him after his ownership was established, so his ownership does not cease, just as if his horse ran away or his camel bolted. If he hunts game and finds a mark on it, such as finding a necklace on its neck or an earring in its ear, he does not own it, because the one who hunted it first owned it, and his ownership does not cease by its escape. The same applies if he finds a bird with clipped wings. If it is said: It is possible that the one who first caught it was a pilgrim (muhrim) who did not own it, or that he released it by way of abandoning and relinquishing ownership, like throwing away a worthless item. We say: As for the first, it is rare and contrary to the apparent state, because the apparent state of the pilgrim is that he does not hunt what Allah has forbidden to him. As for the second, it is contrary to the original principle (asl), for the original principle is the continuation of his ownership, and what they mentioned is merely possible; therefore, ownership does not cease based on doubt. If it is known that its owner released it by choice, our companions said: Ownership does not cease.