and the people of rationalist opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y). Al-Awza'i said: It is lawful in this case. Our argument is that sending the dog against the game is a condition for what we have explained, and it was not found in one of the two.
Section: If a Muslim sends his dog, and a Magian sends his dog, and the Magian's dog turns the game toward the Muslim's dog, and it kills it, its consumption is lawful. This is the view of al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifa said: It is not lawful, because the Magian's dog assisted in its hunting, so it is similar to if it had wounded it. Our argument is that the Muslim's hunting animal alone performed the killing, so it is permitted, just as if a Magian shot his arrow, the game turned, and a Muslim's arrow hit and killed it, or a Magian caught a sheep and a Muslim slaughtered it. With this, what he said is invalidated.
Section: If a Magian hunts with a Muslim's dog, his game is not permitted, according to all of them. But if a Muslim hunts with a Magian's dog and it kills, his game is lawful. This was stated by Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hakam, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the people of rationalist opinion. It is narrated from Ahmad that it is not permitted, and it was disliked by Jabir, al-Hasan, Mujahid, al-Nakha'i, and al-Thawri, due to His saying, the Most High: "...of those you have trained as hunting animals (Mukallibin)" (Quran 5:4). This one was not trained by him [the Muslim]. It is narrated from al-Hasan that he disliked hunting with the dog of a Jew or a Christian, due to this verse. Our argument is that it is a tool with which a Muslim hunted, so its game is lawful, like the bow and the arrow. Ibn al-Musayyib said: It is in the position of his blade. The verse indicated the permissibility of game by what we have trained and what others have trained for us; it is in its meaning, so the ruling is established by the analogy we mentioned. This is confirmed by the fact that training only has an effect in making it a tool, and legal capacity (ahliyya) is not stipulated for that, like the work of
(13) In the copies: "shartan" (a condition). (14) In (A) and (B): "al-muslim" (the Muslim). (15) In (M): "al-majusi" (the Magian). (16) In (A) an addition: "wa-Ishaq" (and Ishaq). (17) Surah al-Ma'idah, 4. (18) In (M): "hiya" (it is). (19) In (M): "tushrat" (is stipulated).
وأصحابُ الرَّأْىِ. وقال الأوْزاعِىُّ: يحل ههُنا. ولَنا، أَنَّ إرْسالَ الكلبِ على الصَّيْدِ شرطٌ (١٣) لما بَيَّنَّاه؛ ولم يُوجَدْ فى أحدِهما.
فصل: فإنْ أرْسَلَ مسلمٌ كَلْبَه، وأَرسَلَ مَجُوسِىٌّ كلبَه، فرَدَّ كلبُ الْمَجُوسِىّ الصَّيْدَ إلى كلب المسلمِ، فقَتَلَه، حَلَّ أكلُه. وهذا قولُ الشافِعِىِّ، وأبى ثَوْرٍ. وقال أبو حنيفةَ: لا يَحَلُّ، لأنّ كلبَ الْمَجُوسِىّ عاوَنَ فى اصْطيادِه، فأشْبَهَ إذا عَقَرَه. ولَنا، أَنَّ جارِحَةَ المسلمِ انْفَرَدَت بِقَتْلِه، فأُبِيحَ، كما لو رَمَى الْمَجُوسِىُّ سَهْمَه، فَردَّ الصَّيْدَ، فأصابَه سَهْمُ مُسْلِمٍ (١٤)، فقَتَلَه، أو أَمْسَك مَجُوسِىٌّ شاةً، فَذَبَحَها مسلمٌ. وبهذا يبْطُلُ ما قالَه.
فصل: وإذا صادَ الْمَجُوسِىُّ بكلْبِ مُسْلِمٍ، لم يُبَحْ صَيْدُه. فى قولِهم جميعا. وإِنْ صادَ المسلمُ، بكلْبِ مَجُوسِىٍّ (١٥)، فقَتَلَ، حَلَّ صَيْدُه. وبهذا قال سعيدُ بن المُسَيَّبِ، والحَكَمُ، ومالكٌ، والشافِعِىُّ، وأبو ثَوْرٍ (١٦)، وأصْحابُ الرَّأْىِ. وعن أحمدَ: لا يُباحُ. وكَرِهَه جابرٌ، والحسنُ، ومُجاهِدْ، والنَّخَعِىُّ، والثَّوْرِىُّ؛ لقولِه تَعالَى: {وَمَا عَلَّمْتُمْ مِنَ الْجَوَارِحِ مُكَلِّبِينَ} (١٧). وهذا لم يُعَلِّمْه. وعن الحسن، أنَّه كَرِه الصَّيْدَ بكلبِ اليَهُودِىِّ والنَّصْرانِىِّ، لهذه الآية. ولَنا، أنَّه آلةٌ صادَ بها المسلمُ، فحَلَّ صَيْدُه، كالقَوْسِ والسَّهْمِ. قال ابنُ المُسَيَّبِ: هو (١٨) بمنزِلَةِ شَفْرَتِه. والآية دَلَّت على إباحَةِ الصَّيْدِ بما عَلَّمْناه وما عَلَّمَه غيرُنا، فهو فى مَعْناه، فيَثْبُتُ الحكُم بالقِياسِ الذى ذكرْناه، يُحققُه أَنَّ التَّعْليمَ إنَّما أثَّرَ فى جَعْلِه آلةً، ولا تُشْتَرَطُ (١٩) الأهْلِيَّةُ فى ذلك، كعمَلِ
(١٣) فى النسخ: "شرطا".(١٤) فى أ، ب: "المسلم".(١٥) فى م: "المجوسى".(١٦) فى أزيادة: "وإسحاق".(١٧) سورة المائدة ٤.(١٨) فى م: "هى".(١٩) فى م: "تشرط".