English
Adi ibn Hatim narrated: I said, “O Messenger of Allah, we send trained dogs?” He said: “Eat what they catch for you.” 1 I said, “Even if they kill it?” He said: “Even if they kill it.” I said, “And we shoot with the mi’rad (a blunt arrow)?” 2 He said: “Eat what it pierces, but do not eat what it strikes with its side.”
Possible references (unverified, pending editorial review)
- Candidate: Sahih Muslim 1929a (unverified) 90% confidence
- Candidate: Sahih al-Bukhari 5483 (unverified) 70% confidence · Validation similarity: 0.582
Confidence and text similarity are not editorial verification.
Commentary and footnotes (4)
Note 1
(1) The statement: “Eat what they catch for you”: This general statement aligns with Allah’s saying: So eat of what they catch for you (Qur’an 5:4), without requiring wounding, supporting the view of al-Hasan from Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf that wounding is not a condition. However, the apparent position of the school is that wounding is required for predators with fangs or claws, in any part of the body Amelia: body, to ensure emergency slaughter. They said: The purpose is to let out the flowing blood, which is achieved by wounding, as in voluntary slaughter or shooting with an arrow. If it does not wound, it becomes like a “mawqudha” (struck animal), which is forbidden by text. The fatwa is based on the apparent narration. The principle here is that if death is certainly caused by wounding, it is eaten; if caused by weight or there is doubt, it is not eaten, either absolutely or as a precaution. This is taken from “Al-Mirqat” and “Al-Inayah.”
Note 2
(2) The statement: “And we shoot with the mi’rad, etc.”: In “Al-Hidayah,” it is stated: What is struck by the side of the mi’rad is not eaten; if it wounds, it is eaten, based on the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying: “What it hits with its edge, eat; what it hits with its side, do not eat.” This is because wounding is necessary to fulfill the meaning of slaughter, as explained earlier. What is killed by a pellet is not eaten, as it crushes and breaks without wounding, like a mi’rad that does not pierce. In “Al-Mirqat,” al-Nawawi said: The “mawqudha” is what is killed by a non-sharp object like a stick or stone. They agreed that if hunted with a mi’rad and killed by its edge, it is permissible; if by its side, it is not. They said nothing killed by a pellet is permissible, per the mi’rad hadith. Makhul, al-Awza’i, and other Syrian jurists said what is killed by a mi’rad or pellet is permissible.
Note 1
(١) قوله: كل ما أمسكن عليك: في هذا الإطلاق المطابق لقوله تعالى: (فَكُلُواْ مِمَّآ أَمْسَكْنَ عَلَيْكُمْ ) (المائدة: ٤) منغير قيد بالجرح تأييد؛ لما روى الحسن عن أبي حنيفة وأبي يوسف أنه لا يشترط الجرح، وظاهر المذهب أنه يشترطجرح ذي الناب وذي المخلب للصيد في أيِّ موضع كان لتحقق الذكاه الاضطرارية، قالوا: ووجهه أن المقصود إخراج الدم المسفوح، وهو بالجرح عادة، فأقيم الجرح مقامه، كما في الذكاة الاختيارية والرمي بالسهم، ولأنه لو لم يجرحه صارموقوذة، وهي محرمة بالنص، والفتوى على ظاهر الرواية، والأصل هنا أن الموت إن حصل بالجرح بيقين يؤكل، وإنحصل بالثقل أو شك فيه لا يؤكل حتما أو احتياطا. أخذته من (المرقاة) و (العناية).
Note 2
(٢) قوله: إنا نرمي بالمعراض إلخ: قال في (الهداية): وما أصابه المعراض بعرضه لم يؤكل، وإن جرحه يؤكل؛ لقوله صلي الله عليه واله وسلم فيه: (ما أصاب بحده فكل، وما أصاب بعرضه فلا تأكل) ولأنه لا بُدَّ من الجرح؛ ليتحقق معنى الذكاة على ما قدمناه،ولا يؤكل ما أصابه البندقة فمات بها؛ لأنها تدق وتكسر ولا تجرح، فصار كالمعراض إذا لم يخرق اه. وقال في (المرقاة): قال النووي: الوقيذ والموقوذة هو الذي يقتل بغير محدد من عصا أو حجر أو غيرهما، واتفقوا على أنه إذااصطاد بالمعراض فقتل الصيد بحده حل، وإن قتله بعرضه لم يجل، وقالوا: لا يحل ما قتله بالبندقة مطلقًا لحديثالمعراض. وقال مكحول والأوزاعي وغيرهما من فقهاء الشام: يحل ما قتل بالمعراض والبندقة.