is not correct, because the ruling hinges on this instrument: whether it has performed its function or not. There is no difference between the one who eats being rich or poor. However, construing the texts as applying to two cases on the basis of the instrument is undoubtedly a strong reconciliation.
As for the second type, which hunts with its talons, the scholars say that it is known to be trained by only two signs:
First: it sets off when it is released.
Second: it stops when it is called back.
It is not stipulated that it refrain from eating, because this is not possible with an animal that hunts with its talons: it must eat. Accordingly, we say that Allah’s statement, “And those hunting animals which you have trained,” is unrestricted; thus, training in every case is according to what is appropriate to it. This is left to customary practice.
Regarding Allah’s statement, “training them to hunt”: it has been said that it means teaching them taklīb—that is, seizing and killing; and it has also been said that it means urging them on.
According to the first interpretation, “training them to hunt” is a circumstantial qualifier reinforcing its governing expression, namely, “which you have trained.” It is as though He said: “which you have trained, being trainers.” Its benefit is to indicate that the trainer must possess knowledge and skill in training these hunting animals; thus, he is a mukallib—that is, someone knowledgeable in taklīb.
Third: releasing the instrument with intent. If the dog or another hunting animal sets off on its own, the game is not lawful, unless he calls it back and it increases its pursuit of the quarry; then it is lawful.
His statement, “Third: releasing the instrument with intent,” means that the third condition is to release the instrument in both its types: whether it is a sharp implement, such as an arrow, or a trained hunting animal, such as a dog or falcon.
His statement, “releasing the instrument,” is a verbal noun annexed to its object; that is, the hunter releases the instrument.