it is not counted in his favor (1), according to our scholars. This, however, is plainly open to objection, for a hit made with the front fragment that carries the nock is exactly the same as a hit made with the arrowhead; there is no difference between the two. Indeed, some Shāfiʿī scholars (2) have even said that if the target is struck by the piece bearing the arrowhead it is not credited, whereas if it is struck by the piece bearing the nock, it is credited according to one of their two opinions. Both of these views are weak, whether considered analytically or by analogy. The correct position is that a hit is credited in either case, for what matters is not the arrowhead but the strike itself. Were the arrowhead so flimsy that it fell short of the mark while the headless shaft still hit the target, the hit would unquestionably be counted for the archer; this case is no different (3).

Sub-issue
If the archer draws so powerfully that the arrow passes straight through the target and exits from the other side, the shot is counted both for him and against him. If, on its way, the arrow strikes an animal, passes through it, and then hits the target, the hit is credited to him. Even more remote from sound reasoning is the view of certain Shāfiʿī authorities (4) who claimed that the shot should not be credited to him, nor