dogs, then he forbade killing them, saying: "Upon you is the solid black one, the one with two spots, for it is a devil." Thus, he ordered its killing, and that which is obligatory to kill, its keeping and training are forbidden; therefore, its hunting is not permitted for anyone other than the trained dog. Furthermore, the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - called it a devil, and it is not permissible to keep a devil, and the permissibility of the slaughtered game is a concession, so it is not rendered permissible by something forbidden, like all other concessions. The general rulings are qualified by what we have mentioned. If it has two spots above its eyes, it does not depart by that from being considered solid black (bahim) according to the report we mentioned.

1705 - Issue: He said: (And if he reaches the game while it still has life, and he does not slaughter it until it dies, it is not eaten.)

He means, and Allah knows best, that which possessed a stable life (hayat mustaqirra). As for that whose life is like the life of a slaughtered animal, this is permissible without slaughtering according to them all, for slaughter in such a case does not benefit anything. Likewise, if a Magian slaughtered it, and then a Muslim slaughtered it again, it would not become lawful. However, if he reached it while it had a stable life and did not slaughter it until it died, you must look: if there was not enough time to slaughter it before it died, then it is also lawful. Qatadah said: One may eat it as long as one did not procrastinate in slaughtering it or leave it intentionally while being capable of slaughtering it. The same view is held by Malik and al-Shafi'i. This is also narrated from al-Hasan and al-Nakha'i. Abu Hanifah said: It is not lawful, because he reached it while it had a stable life, so its permissibility is contingent upon its slaughter, just as if there had been enough time. Our argument is that he was not able to slaughter it in a way that he could be attributed with negligence, nor was there enough time for it, so its wounding (by the hunting animal) was its slaughter, like that which it killed. It differs from what they drew an analogy to, because in their case he was capable of slaughtering it and was negligent in omitting it. If he reached it while it had a stable life in which it could live for a long time, and he was capable of slaughtering it but did not do so until it died, it is not permitted, regardless of whether it had a wound from which it would not survive or otherwise. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and Abu

1706 - Issue: He said: (If he does not have with him that with which he could slaughter it, the hunter urges his hunting animal onto it until it kills it, and it is eaten.)

He means: he incites the dog toward it and sends it upon it. The meaning of ashla in Arabic is to call. However, the common people use it in the sense of inciting. It is possible that al-Khiraqi intended calling it and then sending it, because sending it upon the game includes calling it towards it. There is a difference of opinion attributed to Ahmad on this issue; one report from him is the same as the statement of al-Khiraqi. This is the opinion of al-Hasan and Ibrahim. He said in another place: I feel a shudder at this, meaning he does not view it as permissible. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, because it is an animal that can be captured, so it is not rendered permissible by the killing of the beast of prey, just like livestock, and as if he had taken it unharmed. The basis for the first view is that it is game which the beast of prey killed for him when he was unable to slaughter it, so it is permitted, just as if he had reached it already dead. Furthermore, this is a situation where slaughtering at the throat or the base of the neck is generally impossible, so it is permissible for its slaughter to be according to what is possible, like an animal that has fallen into a well. It is narrated from al-Qadi that he said in this case to leave it until it dies, at which point it becomes lawful; because it is game whose slaughter became impossible, so it is rendered permissible by its death resulting from the wound inflicted by the hunter's animal, like that whose slaughter was impossible due to the shortness of its neck. The first view is more correct, because it is an animal that is not permitted without slaughter when one has the tool for slaughter, so it is not permitted without it when one does not have the tool, like everything else that can be slaughtered. The issue of al-Khiraqi is understood to apply to that which is feared to die if the animal does not kill it or if it is not slaughtered. If it has life that could last until he brings it to his dwelling, then there is no disagreement that it is not permitted except by slaughter, because it is possible to slaughter it.