Chapter: Hunting with the Bow. Al-Hasan and Ibrahim said: If one strikes game and a hand or leg is severed from it, he does not eat the severed part but eats the rest.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Reciter: Chapter: Hunting with the Bow. Al-Hasan and Ibrahim said: If one strikes game and a hand or leg is severed from it, he does not eat the severed part but eats the rest. Ibrahim said: If you strike its neck or its middle, eat it. Al-A'mash narrated from Zayd: A donkey became unmanageable for a man from the family of 'Abdullah, so he ordered them to strike it wherever it was easy, leave what fell from it, and eat the rest.
The Shaykh : This issue concerns the bow. Is the bow known or not? It is known; it is a device in which arrows are placed and then released, propelling the arrow from it. It is similar to the guns known today, but the guns known today have greater penetration than it. Here it is said that Al-Hasan and Ibrahim, meaning al-Nakha'i, said: "If one strikes game and a hand or leg is severed from it, he does not eat the severed part but eats the rest". This means that if you strike this animal with an arrow and its leg is cut off, then it runs away and its blood disperses until it dies, we say that the part severed from it before its death is not lawful, while the remaining part is lawful. Why? Because what is severed from a living creature is dead, like its carrion. However, if the people rushed to this game all together and struck it with a single blow, so that this one took its hand, this one its leg, this one its neck, and this one its side, and it was torn apart entirely, Imam Ahmad stated that all of this is lawful because no part of it was severed except with a complete severance until it died entirely. He said: They, meaning the Salaf, used to do this in their expeditions. The people would go out to hunt and strike it; this one would cut a leg, this one a leg, this one a hand, this one a hand, this one the head, and so on. He said this is lawful, unlike the case where a limb is cut off and the animal runs away; that is not eaten. The leg is not eaten because it was severed from a living creature. Ibrahim, meaning al-Nakha'i, also said: "If you strike its neck or its middle, eat it". This is known because this is a fatal blow. If you strike its neck, that is slaughter. The middle is also a fatal blow that cuts it in half; it will certainly die. This is unlike the case where only its leg is cut off. Al-A'mash narrated from Zayd: "A donkey became unmanageable for a man from the family of 'Abdullah, meaning 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, so he ordered them to strike it wherever it was easy, leave what fell from it, and eat the rest". This is like the first opinion. The donkey referred to here is the wild ass. Yes.
The Shaykh : This issue concerns the bow. Is the bow known or not? It is known; it is a device in which arrows are placed and then released, propelling the arrow from it. It is similar to the guns known today, but the guns known today have greater penetration than it. Here it is said that Al-Hasan and Ibrahim, meaning al-Nakha'i, said: "If one strikes game and a hand or leg is severed from it, he does not eat the severed part but eats the rest". This means that if you strike this animal with an arrow and its leg is cut off, then it runs away and its blood disperses until it dies, we say that the part severed from it before its death is not lawful, while the remaining part is lawful. Why? Because what is severed from a living creature is dead, like its carrion. However, if the people rushed to this game all together and struck it with a single blow, so that this one took its hand, this one its leg, this one its neck, and this one its side, and it was torn apart entirely, Imam Ahmad stated that all of this is lawful because no part of it was severed except with a complete severance until it died entirely. He said: They, meaning the Salaf, used to do this in their expeditions. The people would go out to hunt and strike it; this one would cut a leg, this one a leg, this one a hand, this one a hand, this one the head, and so on. He said this is lawful, unlike the case where a limb is cut off and the animal runs away; that is not eaten. The leg is not eaten because it was severed from a living creature. Ibrahim, meaning al-Nakha'i, also said: "If you strike its neck or its middle, eat it". This is known because this is a fatal blow. If you strike its neck, that is slaughter. The middle is also a fatal blow that cuts it in half; it will certainly die. This is unlike the case where only its leg is cut off. Al-A'mash narrated from Zayd: "A donkey became unmanageable for a man from the family of 'Abdullah, meaning 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, so he ordered them to strike it wherever it was easy, leave what fell from it, and eat the rest". This is like the first opinion. The donkey referred to here is the wild ass. Yes.