his error is due to an external factor, not to his poor marksmanship. The Qadi said: Even if he does hit, it is not counted [for him; for if it is not counted against him, it is not counted for him] (69). Furthermore, a strong wind might divert a well-aimed shot, causing it to miss, and it might also divert a wayward shot from its error, causing it to land as a hit; thus, the hit would be due to the wind, not to the skill of his shooting. As for the arrow that lands on a screen between him and the target, pierces it, and strikes the target, it is counted for him, because his striking it is due to the accuracy of his aim, and its piercing the screen is due to his force; therefore, it is more entitled to be counted than otherwise. If the wind is gentle and light, such that it does not usually divert an arrow, he is not prevented; because the atmosphere is never free of wind, and because a gentle wind has no effect except on weak shooting from which no benefit is derived.

Section: If their condition is "khawasiq" (piercings), and the "khasiq" is that which pierces the target and stays in it. Whenever he strikes the target with his arrowhead and it stays in it, it is counted for him. If he grazes it but does not pierce it, it is not counted for him, and it is counted (70) against him. If it passes through it, it is counted for him, because that is due to the power of his shooting, which is more effective than piercing. If it "kharaqahu" (tears through it)—which is to pierce it and land in front of it—there are two views: one is that it is counted for him, because he made a hole suitable for piercing, and the arrow failed to stay only for another reason, such as the width of the hole or otherwise. The second view is that it is not counted for him, because their condition is "khawasiq" (piercings), and the "khasiq" is that which stays in the target, and its staying is due to the skill (71) of the archer and his intent in his shot to achieve what they agreed upon. If the arrow's failure to stay was due to its encountering an obstacle that prevents staying, such as a pebble, a stone, a bone, or hard ground, there are two views; however, if it is not counted for him, it is not counted against him, because the external factor prevented it from staying, so it resembles the case where an external factor prevented it from hitting the target. If they disagree on the existence of the external factor, you look: if the location of the hole is known by their mutual agreement or by evidence, the location is examined; if there is nothing in it that would prevent [the arrow from staying], the statement is that of the denier. If there is something in it that would prevent it, the statement is that of the claimant, and no oath is required, because the circumstances testify to the truth of what he claims. If they do not know the location of the hole, but they agree that it tore through the target and there was nothing behind it that would prevent it, the statement is that of the denier without an oath as well, because there is no obstacle. If there was something behind it that would prevent it,