Book of Hunting and Ritual Slaughter

The ritual dispatch (dhakāh) of an edible animal is effected by cutting its throat or the pit at the base of the neck when one can hold the animal; otherwise, a lethal wound (ʿaqr) struck anywhere on its body suffices.

For the person who slaughters or hunts, it is a condition that marriage with him be lawful—that is, he must be a Muslim, Jew, or Christian. The slaughter carried out by a female slave from the People of the Book is likewise permissible. If, however, a Magian joins a Muslim in slaughtering or hunting, the meat becomes unlawful.

Should each of them release a dog or shoot an arrow, then if the Muslim’s weapon reaches the game first and either kills it outright or leaves it in the death-throes of a slaughtered animal, the meat is lawful. If the reverse happens, or both weapons wound the animal simultaneously, or priority cannot be determined, or the blows are successive without either proving decisive, the meat is forbidden.

The slaughter performed by a discerning child is valid, and—according to the preponderant view—the same applies to that done by a younger child, an insane person, or a drunkard. The slaughter of a blind person is disliked, and, on the sounder position, any game he takes by arrow or dog is unlawful.

The dead bodies of fish and locusts are permissible to eat even when caught by a Magian. The same ruling, on the stronger opinion, applies to worms that arise within foods such as vinegar or fruit, provided they are eaten along with the food. One should not cut a piece from a living fish, yet if someone does so, or swallows a fish alive, it is still lawful according to the more correct view.

If someone shoots wild game, a runaway camel, or a sheep that has bolted with an arrow, or looses a trained hunting animal against it, and the projectile or beast strikes any part of the quarry’s body so that it dies at once, the meat is lawful. Likewise, if a camel or the like falls into a well and it is impossible to cut its throat, it is treated as a runaway animal and may be dispatched by stabbing.

I say: the correct view is that simply releasing a dog does not make the animal lawful; this was declared sound by al-Ruyānī and al-Shāshī—Allah knows best. Whenever the animal can be overtaken—by pursuing it oneself or by enlisting someone to head it off—it is considered within one’s power to slaughter. For a runaway or fallen animal, any wound that leads to death suffices, though some require that the wound itself be mortal.

If a person shoots an arrow, releases a dog, or a bird of prey at game, the quarry is struck, and then dies, the rulings are as follows:
• If, on reaching it, he finds no stable signs of life, or he does find life but cannot slaughter it through no fault of his own—such as when he has drawn his knife but it dies before slaughter is possible, or it resists due to its strength and dies before he gains control—the meat is lawful.
• If, however, it dies because of his negligence—because he had no knife, or it was taken from him, or became jammed in its sheath—the meat is unlawful.

If his arrow cuts the animal in two halves, both halves are lawful. If he severs a limb with a lethal wound, both the detached limb and the remainder of the carcass are lawful. But if the limb is detached by a non-lethal wound and he then slaughters the animal or inflicts a second, lethal wound, the separated limb is unlawful while the rest is lawful. If he is unable to slaughter it and it dies from the wound, the entire animal is lawful.