Thawr, and the people of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y); because that which is in such a state is subject to the ruling of the living, as evidenced by the fact that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, had wounds that were life-threatening (muhiyya), yet he made a will, and his wills and statements were permitted during that condition, nor did prayer and acts of worship cease to be incumbent upon him. Also, because he left slaughtering it despite having the power to do so, thus it resembles non-game animals.

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.