permitted game, so he is not liable. This is as if he killed game other than it. It differs from the arrow because the dog has intent and volition; for this reason, it may become aggressive on its own, and [the owner] may send it in one direction while it proceeds to another, whereas the arrow is the opposite of this. Once this is established, he may not eat the game in all these instances, whether he is liable for compensation or not; because it is Sanctuary game that was killed within the Sanctuary, so it is prohibited, just as if he were liable for it. Furthermore, because when we sever the action of the human, it becomes as if the dog became aggressive on its own and killed it. However, if a person in the state of Halal throws at game outside the Sanctuary from outside the Sanctuary and wounds it, and the game struggles and enters the Sanctuary and dies therein, its consumption is permissible, and there is no compensation for it; because the slaughter occurred outside the Sanctuary. It is thus similar to one who wounds game and then enters the state of Ihram, and the game dies after his Ihram. It is disliked to eat it, however, due to it dying in the Sanctuary.

Section: If game stands with some of its limbs in the area outside the Sanctuary and some within the Sanctuary, and a killer kills it, he is liable for its compensation, giving precedence to the Sanctuary. This is the opinion of Abu Thawr and the People of Opinion. If he startles game from the Sanctuary, and it is struck by something while in the state of being startled, he is liable for it; because he was the cause of its destruction, making it similar to if it had perished by his trap or net. If it settles down from its state of being startled, and then it is struck by something, there is nothing upon the one who startled it. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and it is the opinion of al-Thawri, because he was not the cause of its destruction. It has been narrated from 'Umar that a dove landed on his garment, and he made it fly off; it then fell upon a standing person and was snatched by a snake. He consulted 'Uthman and Nafi' ibn 'Abd al-Harith about this, and they ruled against him for a sheep. This indicates that they viewed him as being liable after it had settled. However, if it moved from the second location and was struck by something, there is no liability upon him, because it had departed from the place to which it was chased. The statement of al-Thawri and Ahmad only indicates this, for Sufyan said: If you chase something within the Sanctuary, and it strikes something before it lands, or at the moment it lands, you are liable; but if it lands and [then] goes from that place to another place, there is nothing upon you. Ahmad said: That is excellent.