according to the school of Abu Hanifah. Ismail ibn Sa'id said: I asked Ahmad about a sick sheep for which they feared death, so they slaughtered it, and nothing was known of it other than that it moved its eye, or moved its hand, leg, or tail weakly, and blood flowed forth? He said: There is no harm in it. Ibn Abi Musa said: If it has reached a point from which it would not live, it is not rendered lawful by ritual slaughter. Ahmad asserted this, saying: If a wolf tears its abdomen and its entrails emerge, and then it is slaughtered, it is not eaten. He also said: If it is known that it would die from the predator's attack, it is not to be eaten, even if it is ritually slaughtered. Sometimes, one fears for a sheep that it will die from an ailment or something that befalls it, so one hastens and slaughters it, and then eats it. This is not like that [the previous] case; for there, one does not know—perhaps it might live—whereas the one whose intestines have come out, it is known that it will not live. This is the opinion of Abu Yusuf. The first [view] is more correct, because the wound of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) reached a point from which it was known he would not live, yet he made a will, his wills were accepted, and acts of worship were still obligatory upon him. Furthermore, the generality of the verse and the report we mentioned, and the fact that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not seek further details in the hadith of Ka'b's slave girl, refute this. The texts of Ahmad are interpreted as referring to a sheep whose intestines have emerged and become detached; for such a sheep does not become lawful through slaughter because it is in the status of a dead animal, and its movement does not remain except like the movement of a slaughtered animal. As for the one whose intestines have come out but not become detached, it is in the status of one that is alive and is rendered lawful by slaughter. For this reason, al-Khiraqi said regarding someone who splits the belly of a man, brings out his viscera, cuts them and detaches them, and then someone else strikes his neck—the killer is the first one. But if he splits the belly of a man and another strikes his neck, the killer is the second. Some of our companions said: If it would have lived for the majority of the day, it is rendered lawful by slaughter. This limitation is far-fetched, contradicts the apparent meaning of the texts, and there is no way to know it. His statement in the hadith of Ka'b's slave girl, "So she reached it and slaughtered it with a stone," indicates that she hastened to perform the slaughter when she feared its death at that moment. The correct view is that if it was such that it would live for a time during which death by slaughter is faster than its natural death, it becomes lawful by slaughter. And that whenever it is not certain it will die, like the sick animal, if it moves and its blood flows, it becomes lawful. And Allah knows best.