for cases in which the animal cannot be subdued because it has bolted, whereas these apply where it cannot be reached in relation to us. However, the author made an exception, saying:

“Unless its head is in water or the like, in which case it is not lawful.” If its head is in water, it is not lawful, because we do not know whether it died from the water or from the arrow. As the Prophet ﷺ said regarding game: “If you find it drowned in water, then do not eat it, for you do not know whether the water killed it or your arrow.” (1) This reasoning indicates that, if we were certain that it was the arrow that killed it, it would be lawful. But how can I know?

The answer is that the water may be too shallow to drown it, or that I see it raise its nose to breathe, while the arrow has struck its heart, for example. In that case, we know that it was the arrow, rather than the water, that killed it. Must one then descend into the well and slaughter it in the customary manner?

The answer is that he may be unable to do so; perhaps, if he descends, the animal will die, and thus he will miss the opportunity.

His words, “or the like,” mean, for example, if it falls into a fire and we shoot it with an arrow. We do not know whether the fire killed it or the arrow, so it is not lawful, because in this case a factor permitting it and a factor prohibiting it have come together. The prohibitive side—that is, the side of forbiddance—takes precedence, because we do not know which of the two caused its death.

Fourth: That he says at the time of slaughtering, “In the name of Allah.” Nothing else suffices in its place. If he omits it forgetfully, the animal is lawful, but not if he omits it deliberately.

His words, “Fourth: that he says”—the pronoun refers to the person performing the slaughter.