against him, it is likewise not credited to him; for a strong wind may just as readily deflect a well-aimed shot1 so that it misses as it may redirect an errant arrow and cause it to strike the mark. In that case the hit is attributable to the wind, not to the archer’s skill.
If an arrow strikes an obstacle that stands between the archer and the target, pierces it, and then hits the target, the shot is counted for him, because the impact came from the soundness of his aim and the arrow’s power to penetrate, which is an even stronger claim to be scored2 than other hits.
But if the breeze is gentle and would not normally deflect an arrow, this does not prevent the shot from being counted either for or against him; the air is never completely free of wind, and a light breeze affects only a feeble shot that is of no practical use.
Sub-issue
If the wind3 blows the target away and the arrow lands in the very spot where the target had been, then:
• If the two competitors had stipulated that a hit counts merely by landing on the spot (khawāṣil4), the shot is credited to the archer, for we know that had the target remained in place he would have hit it.
• If they had stipulated that only arrows that embed in the target (khawāsiq) are scored, the shot is not counted either for him or against him.
This is the view of Abū al-Khattāb, because in the latter case we cannot know whether the arrow would in fact have lodged in the target had it been there.