became detached from it.

Others maintained that both the animal and the severed limb may be eaten. A third group distinguished between whether the detached limb was a vital part or not. They said: if it is a vital part, then both the game and the limb are lawful to eat; if it is not vital, the game itself may be eaten but the detached member may not. This is essentially Mālik’s position, and on this basis they further disputed cases where the animal is cut clean in half, or where one portion is larger than the other.

Their disagreement stems from the apparent clash between the Prophet’s statement, peace and blessings be upon him, “Whatever is cut from a living animal is carrion,” and the general wording of the Almighty’s words, “So eat of that which they have caught for you” (al-Māʾidah 5:4), as well as His words, “Within reach of your hands and your spears” (al-Māʾidah 5:94).

Whoever gives unrestricted precedence to the ruling of game—that is, to the fact that it has been hunted—says: both the quarry and the limb severed from it may be eaten, and he construes the ḥadīth as applying only to domesticated animals. Whoever understands the ḥadīth to cover both wild and domesticated animals, yet exempts the hunted quarry from the general import of the verse, says: the entire animal may be eaten except for the limb that was detached. As for the one who takes the phrase “while it is alive” to refer specifically to an animal possessing settled, stable life, he differentiates between a vital limb and a non-vital one, permitting the former and forbidding the latter.

Chapter Four: The Conditions Required of the Hunter

The hunter must meet the same conditions required of the slaughterer himself; these have already been set out in the Book of Slaughtered Animals, in both the agreed and disputed points. Hunting on land, however, carries one additional requirement: the hunter must not be in a state of iḥrām, and there is no disagreement on this, for the Almighty says, “The game of the land is forbidden to you while you remain in a state of sanctity” (al-Māʾidah 5:96).

If someone in iḥrām does hunt, is that game lawful for a person who is not in iḥrām, or is it carrion that no one at all may eat? The jurists differed. Mālik held it to be carrion, whereas al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, and Abū Thawr were of the opinion that it is permissible for anyone other than the pilgrim himself to eat it. The root of their disagreement is the well-known legal principle: does a prohibition invalidate the object to which it applies or not? This is analogous to an animal slaughtered by a thief or a usurper.

They also disagreed, under this heading, about hunting with a trained dog owned by a Magian. Mālik said such hunting is permissible, for what is determinative is the hunter, not the instrument; al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, and others concurred with him. It was deemed disliked, however, by Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh, al-Ḥasan, ʿAṭāʾ, Mujāhid, and al-Thawrī, on the grounds that the Qur’ānic address, “And what you have trained of hunting animals, teaching them as Allah has taught you” (al-Māʾidah 5:4), is directed specifically to the believers.

What we have mentioned suffices for the purposes of this book. Allah is the One who guides to what is correct.