Hunting

Rule (1587) It is not lawful to use for food the animals hunted by other animals or birds like eagle, hawk, falcon, cheetah and tigers other than hunting dogs. But if a dog hunts an animal which could normally be used as food and the dog kills the animal, stuns or wounds it according to Shari'a rules such animals can be used for food, regardless of the kind of dogs such as a greyhound etc.

Rule (1588) The animal hunted by a dog can only be used lawfully for food when the following conditions exist:

1. The dog must be trained for hunting and it can take place when the dog is trained enough to chase and catch the prey when the dog is told to do so.

The dog must stop the chase after he is told to chase and catch the prey. Whether or not dog's stopping the chase after he is told to catch the prey is required there are two views about it, according to the stronger view such condition is not necessary, although it is a precaution that the dog must not eat what he catches before the owner arrives, when normally he eats such food, however, if he accidentally eats when normally he does not eat it is not an offense.

2. The hunt must take place when the owner releases the dog to hunt, thus, if the dog is loose on his own and hunts an animal such animal cannot lawfully be used for food, the same rule applies if the dog is released for some other reasons like to chase away the enemy or a beast and the dog hunts an animal. If the dog is loose on his own chasing the animal and the owner tells him to hunt and the dog hunts it is Ihtiyat not to eat such hunt even if the owners telling to hunt would have made the dog to run faster to hunt. If the dog is loose on his own and the owner tells him to halt the chase and the dog obeys him then he tells the dog to chase and catch a prey and the dog obeys him the catch can in this case lawfully be used for food. If the dog is told to catch a specified deer but the dog catches another one the catch is good for food; the same rule applies if the dog catches another one along with the specified one because the condition affects the kind not the individuals.

3. The supervisor must be a Muslim; if the dog is ordered by a non-Muslim to catch, the catch is not good for food, regardless, the Muslim is an adult or a child, and regardless, the non-Muslim is of the followers of the Bible or other kinds of non-Muslim or non-Muslim tax payer.

4. When releasing the dog to catch, the supervisor must pronounce the praise and name of Allah and according to strong reason it is enough to do so after the dog is released and before the catch takes place. If purposely, the name of Allah is not mentioned the catch is not good for food but if it is due to forgetfulness, the catch is lawful for food, the same rule applies to hunting with arrows.

Rule (1589) In hunting or slaughtering it is enough to pronounce the name of Allah with one of His attributes expressing His glory and praise as Allahu Akbar, Allah is great beyond description, Al-Hamdu-lillah, praise be to Allah, Bismillah, in the name of Allah. Pronouncing just His holy name is not free from objection.

5. The death of the prey must be due to the dog's wounding or stunning but if it is because of some other reason like being shocked, strangle or due to exhaustion in the chase etc., it can not be used for food.

Rule (1590) If the dog is sent to catch and the dog reaches and one finds it dead after being approach by the dog, it is good for food. The same rule applies if the owner finds the prey after being caught by the dog but there is not enough time for a normal slaughtering and the prey dies, but if he finds the prey alive and there is enough time for a normal slaughtering and he leaves it until it dies, such prey cannot lawfully be used for food. If he finds the prey after being caught by the dog and is stunned and still is alive and not yet under full control like being hardly hurt but still on the run and if he chases the prey and approaches it if he finds it dead it is lawful for food. The same rule applies if he reaches it while still alive but there is not enough time for a normal slaughtering, but if there is enough time but he leaves it until it dies in this case the prey is not a lawful food.

Rule (1591) The minimum time needed for slaughter is a time which gives the animal a chance to at least move its eyes, legs or tail because of the effect of slaughtering, if one reaches the prey and a time as just mentioned is available such prey cannot lawfully be used for food without slaughtering.

Rule (1592) If one begins the preliminary works of slaughtering like sharpening the knife, removing the obstacles such as the hairs from the neck etc. and the animal dies before slaughtering it is used for food just like when there is not enough time for slaughtering. If he does not have the tools for slaughtering and does not slaughter until it dies it cannot lawfully be used for food according to a necessary Ihtiyat, if, in such case, one orders the dog to kill and he does so, the meat then can lawfully be used for food due to a strong reason.

Rule (1593) Apparently, one does not have to hurry to reach the prey as soon as the dog is released and not even from the time the prey is caught as long as the prey is resisting, but does one have to hurry to reach the prey at a time when it is fully controlled? There are two views; for more precaution, one must hurry up, if one thinks that it helps make slaughtering possible, otherwise, it is not necessary even if the reason for not reaching in time is the distance which does not allow one to reach the prey in time except after it is dead because of the injuries done to it by the dog, in such case, not to hurry is not objectionable.

Rule (1594) The prey's dog bite is unclean and it must be washed and it is not lawful to use it for food before washing.

Rule (1595) In dog's hunting it is not necessary that there must only be one supervisor. Thus, even if several people tell a dog to chase and catch a prey while other conditions needed exist in all or with one of them whose telling the dog to chase and catch the prey is enough to motivate the dog if only he is the instigator of the dog. The prey can lawfully be used for good. In the same way it is not necessary that there must be only one dog, thus, if one person sends several dogs and they all together hunt one animal it can lawfully be used for food. In a multiple supervisors and hunters the needed conditions must exist. If a Muslim and a non-Muslim send two dogs who hunt an animal it cannot be used for food the same rule applies if two Muslims send the dogs and only one pronounces the name of Allah, or only one dog has the needed training, if the kill is caused by both together, but if only one is considered to be the cause of the kill which has the required training but not the other, the kill is lawful for food the same rule applies if the opposite of the case takes place.

Rule (1596) When it is doubtful whether or not the death of the prey was due to the dog's attack or some other reason the meat cannot lawfully be used for food, if there are some indications good enough to prove for common practice purposes that the death was caused by the dog's attacks, it is lawful food, even if such indications may not be giving certainty.

Rule (1597) If a prey is killed by the solid object other than what is called a cutting weapon like a sword, a knife, or a dagger etc., it can not lawfully be used for food, or it must be a sharp weapon like spears, or arrows or hand sticks even if there is no sharp piece of iron on one end but are sharp by itself, it is necessary that such objects cause a cutting in the prey if the object does not have any iron on it to make the prey lawful for food. On the contrary, in the case of an object with iron causing a cut is not necessary; only its hitting the prey is enough.

Rule (1598) Apparently, metals other than iron serve the same purpose as the iron does; metals like gold, silver etc, if prey is killed by the weapons made out of such metals, it can lawfully be used for food.

Rule (1599) The prey killed by stones and slingshots or nets and other such hunting devices, which do not have cutting parts or pointed sharpness, is not good for food.

Rule (1600) The sharp objects such as needles and spikes etc. which are not called weapons according to common sense even though they may be sharp, to consider such objects good for hunting is objectionable, but, whatever is a weapon even if it is outdated, is free from objection in hunting.

Rule (1601) It is very possible to consider good for hunting the rifles, bullets, and guns used these days, provided, they have pointed round ends, regardless of their materials as being made out of iron or lead etc. If the size is very small like grains, its effectiveness for hunting to shari'a is objectionable. In hunting with solid objects it is necessary that the hunter is a Muslim, the name of Allah is mentioned at the time of firing or shooting, the kill must be caused by the shot; that the shot is for hunting, thus, if one shoots or fires into the air for no reason or to the enemy or a wolf and it hits a deer, the kill is not lawful for food. The same rule applies if a shot slips from one's hands and hits and kills a deer, if one shoots a particular deer to hunt but it hits another it is lawful for food. For the lawfulness of a kill for food it also is necessary that the hunting object is the only cause for the kill, thus, if an animal falls from a high place or in the water after being hit by the hunter's shot and then killed because of both reasons it is not good for food, the same rule applies if the reason for the kill is a Muslim and a non-Muslim, a person who has mentioned the name of Allah and who has not done so and who had wanted to and one who had no such intention and the kill is by both. In having doubts, as whether or not the reason for the kill is the one that makes it lawful for food, it is considered not good for food.

Rule (1602) If an arrow is shot and the winds help it to hit the prey and kill, such prey is lawful for food, even if without the winds it would not hit the prey, the same rule applies if the arrow, hits the ground and bounces to the prey and hits it and kills.

Rule (1603) In hunting with tools it is necessary to complete the hunting with one tool or only one person, thus, if one person shoots the prey with an arrow and another hits the prey with a spear and it is killed due to both the arrow and spear's effect it is lawful for food, provided, each hunter has all the other requirements, even if one party sends his dog to catch the prey and the dog makes deep bite at the prey and another party shoots the same prey with an arrow and the prey is killed because of the effects of both the dog bite and the arrow it is still good and lawful for food.

Rule (1604) If one hunts with a usurped hunting tool, the prey is good for food although he has committed a sin because of using such tools and must pay the rent according to its current market value, if such tool is rented for hunting, and the prey is the property of the hunter not the owner of tools.

Rule (1605) The rules of hunting are applicable only to the wild animals and birds that can be subdued by means of hunting like deer, wild cows and goats etc., not to pets or the farm animals or chickens. If pets become wild or wild ones become pets the rules of hunting applies to what is at the time of hunting. What is currently a pet can not be dealt with by the rules of hunting even though it may have been a wild animal or bird in the past. The young of the wild animals and birds before they are strong enough to run away are considered like pets, thus if one shoots at a bird and the chick is also killed with it, the bird is good for food but not the chick.

Rule (1606) If bulls or camels go out of control and the animal that attacks people, can be considered, in matters of hunting, like wild animals to use as good food; the same rule applies to the animals that cannot be slaughtered normally like if they fall into a well etc., in such cases slaughtering is done by cutting any part of the body even if it is not the neck area, the meat is good for food. Extending this to the use of hunting dog, in such a case, is objectionable, thus, according to a precautionary rule this rule should only be applied to cutting by means of tools.

Rule (1606) If bulls or camels go out of control and the animal that attacks people, can be considered, in matters of hunting, like wild animals to use as good food; the same rule applies to the animals that cannot be slaughtered normally like if they fall into a well etc., in such cases slaughtering is done by cutting any part of the body even if it is not the neck area, the meat is good for food. Extending this to the use of hunting dog, in such a case, is objectionable, thus, according to a precautionary rule this rule should only be applied to cutting by means of tools.

Rule (1607) In hunting it does not matter whether the prey is edible or not, thus, if inedible beasts are properly hunted, it is lawful to use their skins. If hunting is done by means of solid tools, but there is no objection in their body being clean if it is done by means of dogs.

Rule (1608) If the prey in hunting with tools is cut in two pieces if the tools is of such tools with which hunting is lawful like swords or dogs, if both pieces are dead both pieces are good for food, provided, other conditions required exist and the same rule applies if they are alive but there is not enough time to perform slaughtering. If there is enough time to perform slaughtering the piece without head is not good for food, and the piece with head after proper slaughtering is good food, and if it dies before slaughtering it cannot be used for food. If the hunting tool is not proper like ropes and nets the part without head is not good for food and the one with the head is edible after properly slaughtering and if it is not slaughtered it is not edible.

Rule (1609) The originally wild animal becomes the property of the person who catches it by its legs or tail etc., or catches it by means of net etc., or by shooting it or subdues such animal, the person becomes the owner and the owner of its benefits, and it is not lawful for others to use it without the permission of the owner if such animal runs away form the net or gets well from the injuries and goes out of control again and then is caught by another person this person does not become the owner and it is necessary for him to give it back to the owner. If the net is set but not for hunting he does not become the owner of the animals caught in the net, the same rule applies if a shot is fired but not for hunting, others can have such animal shot dead. If one catches a wild animal with no intention of owning it, his ownership of the same is objectionable according to a reason closer to reality, he is the owner.

Rule (1610) If an animal gets stuck in the mud in one's land or a fish jumps in one's boat he does not become the owner of the animal or the fish, but if he may have prepared such things for hunting like letting the water to muddy one's land or keeps a boat so that fish jump in it or spreads grains for the birds to be trapped or by such means that are not usually used for hunting, in such cases, one's ownership of the prey is objectionable, although according to a more clear reason one's ownership gets established in such a way.

Rule (1611) If one chases an animal and it stops running because of exhaustion he does not become the owner until he catches it; if some one else catches it before he does, the second person becomes the owner. Rule (1612) If an animal falls in a net, which is set up for hunting, but the animal turns himself loose, he does not become the owner. Rule (1613) If the prey is shot but it runs or flies away and remains un-subdued the shooting person does not become the owner.

Rule (1614) If two people shoot at a prey at the same time if both have equally caused the kill it belongs to both, if one has brought it to stop and the other has wounded the prey it belongs to the former and the latter will not have any liability for causing wounds in the prey. But if the shots are not fired at the same time it becomes the property of the one whose shot has subdued the prey, regardless, such shot is the first one or the last.

Rule (1615) If one shoots at a prey thinking it to be an inedible animal like a dog or a pig, while in fact, it is an edible animal and killed by the shot, it is not good for food.

Rule (1616) If one shoots a prey and it is wounded but still is not subdued and enters a house and the owner of the house catches it he becomes the owner because of catching not because of the prey's entering his house.

Rule (1617) If one arranges a resting-place around his house for the pigeons and they do rest therein, the owner of the house does not become their owner because of this and others can catch and own them.

Rule (1618) If a hunter lets his prey go if it is not because of his decision to let it go for good it remains his property, others cannot own it by hunting, but if it is to let it go for good it becomes a wild animal again; any one can hunt and own it and the person who has released it does not have any right to claim it. The same is the rule about other property abandoned by the owner whether it is an animal or same other property, in fact, according to a more clear reason, it does not matter whether abandoning is due to his ability to keep it under his control due to some reason in the property of the owner or it is not due to his inability but it is for some other reason.