his dog, and it entered the Sanctuary, then left and killed the game outside the Sanctuary, there is no compensation upon him. This is the opinion of the People of Opinion, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. Abu Thawr narrated from al-Shafi'i that compensation is upon him. Our evidence is what we have mentioned. The Qadi said: His arrow is not greater than his own self, and if he had run himself, then traversed the Sanctuary along his path, then killed game outside the Sanctuary, there would be nothing upon him; therefore, his arrow is more entitled to this ruling.

Section: If one throws at game outside the Sanctuary from outside the Sanctuary, and it kills game inside the Sanctuary, he is liable for its compensation. This is the opinion of al-Thawri, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion. Abu Thawr said: There is no compensation upon him. This is incorrect, because he killed game belonging to the Sanctuary, so its compensation is incumbent upon him, just as if he had thrown a stone into the Sanctuary and it killed game. The reality of the matter is that an error is the same as intentional action regarding the obligation of compensation, and this does not depart from being one of the two [states]. However, if he sends his dog after game outside the Sanctuary, and the dog enters the Sanctuary and kills other game, he is not liable for it. This is the opinion of al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, the People of Opinion, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir, because he did not send the dog after that specific game; rather, it entered of its own volition, so it is as if it became aggressive on its own without being sent. If he sent it after game, and the game entered the Sanctuary, and the dog followed it and killed it inside the Sanctuary, the ruling is the same. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. 'Ata', Abu Hanifa, and his two companions said: Compensation is upon him, because he killed Sanctuary game by sending his dog after it, so he is liable, just as if he had killed it with his arrow. Abu Bakr 'Abd al-'Aziz chose this view. Salih narrated from Ahmad that he said: If the game is near the Sanctuary, he is liable, because he was negligent by sending it in a location where it is likely that it will enter the Sanctuary; if it is far away, he is not liable due to the absence of negligence. This is the opinion of Malik. Our evidence is that he sent the dog after permitted game