His view is that these three traits are required not only of dogs but of every hunting animal.
Ibn Ḥabīb, one of Mālik’s companions, added: refraining when rebuked is not stipulated for those predators that are by nature incapable of it—such as the goshawk and the falcon. Indeed, Mālik’s own position is that neither the dog nor any other predator must necessarily abstain from eating the quarry. Some scholars made the condition binding for dogs alone and waived it for the birds of prey, while others, as noted earlier, imposed it across the board.
Nevertheless, the majority hold that the game taken by a goshawk or a falcon may be eaten even if the bird has fed on it, because their very training is accomplished through allowing them to eat from the kill.
Thus, the dispute in this chapter turns on two questions:
- Is desisting when rebuked an essential part of an animal’s being “trained”?
- Is it a prerequisite that the animal not eat from the quarry?
The difference over the second point rests on two factors. The first is the variant wording of the earlier ḥadīth of ʿAdiyy ibn Ḥātim, in which the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said: “If it eats, then do not eat, for I fear it may have held it for itself.”
Set against this stands the report of Abū Thaʿlabah al-Khushanī: “The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—said, ‘When you release your trained dog and pronounce the Name of Allah, then eat.’ I asked, ‘Even if it has eaten from it, O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘Even if it has eaten.’”
Whoever reconciles the two ḥadīths by treating ʿAdiyy’s report as a recommendation and Abū Thaʿlabah’s as a statement of permissibility concludes that the animal’s abstaining is not compulsory. But whoever gives precedence to the ḥadīth of ʿAdiyy—because it is agreed upon, whereas Abū Thaʿlabah’s is disputed and therefore omitted by al-Bukhārī and Muslim—maintains that not eating is required; accordingly, if the animal eats, the quarry may not be consumed. This is the view of al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, al-Thawrī, and Ibn ʿAbbās.
Mālik, Saʿīd ibn Mālik, Ibn ʿUmar, and Sulaymān, however, granted a concession to eat even when the dog has eaten, as already mentioned.
Later Mālikīs argued that the dog’s eating is no proof that it failed to seize the prey for its master, nor is catching it for the master a condition of valid slaughter, for the animal’s intention is unknowable: it may first take hold for its owner and then change its mind and take hold for itself.
What they say, however, runs counter to the explicit wording of the ḥadīth and to the plain sense of the Qur’an: “So eat of that which they have caught for you” (al-Māʾidah 5:4). Whether the dog is acting for its owner can be determined by custom, and for this reason the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said: “If it eats, then do not eat; for I fear it has caught it for itself.”
As for their disagreement about desisting, it stems solely from their differing analogies between the dog and other predators. A dog that does not desist is, by consensus, not deemed “trained.” The question is whether other predators that fail to desist may still be called “trained.” The hesitation here is the root of their dispute.