Ruling 2618. If a wild animal whose meat is lawful to eat is hunted with a weapon and it dies, its meat is lawful to eat and its body is pure on the fulfilment of five conditions:

1. the hunting weapon must be sharp, like a knife or a sword, or it must be like a spear or an arrow that can pierce an animal’s body. With regard to the latter [i.e. hunting weapons that pierce an animal’s body,] if the weapon does not have a spearhead, then for the animal to be lawful to eat, it is a condition that the weapon wound and pierce the animal’s body. But if the weapon does have a spearhead, it is sufficient that it kills the animal even though it does not wound it. If an animal is hunted using a trap, piece of wood, stone, or something similar, and it dies, the animal does not become pure and it is unlawful to eat. The same applies, based on obligatory precaution, if the animal is hunted using something sharp that is not a weapon, such as a knitting needle, fork, skewer, or something similar. If an animal is hunted using a gun, in the event that the bullet sinks into and tears the animal’s body, it is pure and lawful to eat, irrespective of whether or not the bullet is sharp and conical in shape. It is not necessary that the bullet be made of iron. However, if the bullet does not sink into the animal’s body but the striking force of it kills the animal, or the heat of it burns the animal’s body and the animal dies, then it being pure and lawful to eat is problematic;

2. the person hunting the animal must be a Muslim or the child of a Muslim on condition that the child can discern good from evil. If he is a disbeliever who is not from among the People of the Book, or he is subject to the rules applicable to disbelievers, such as a nāṣibī, the hunted animal is not lawful. In fact, even if a disbeliever who is from among the People of the Book hunts an animal and mentions the name of Allah the Exalted, the hunted animal is not lawful to eat based on obligatory precaution;

3. the weapon must be used for hunting an animal. Therefore, if, for example, a person aims at a particular target and incidentally kills an animal, the animal is not pure and eating it is unlawful. However, if he shoots an arrow intending to hunt a particular animal but kills another animal instead, that animal is lawful to eat;

4. at the time of using the weapon, the person must mention the name of Allah the Exalted. In the event that he mentions the name of Allah the Exalted before the animal is hit, it is sufficient. If he intentionally does not mention the name of Allah the Exalted, the animal does not become lawful; but there is no problem if he forgets to do so;

5. the hunter must reach the animal after it has died, or if it is still alive, there must not be enough time to slaughter it. In the event that there is enough time to slaughter it but he does not do so before it dies, it is unlawful to eat.

Ruling 2619. If two people hunt an animal and one of them fulfils the conditions mentioned above but the other does not – for example, one of them mentions the name of Allah the Exalted but the other intentionally does not – the animal is not lawful to eat.

Ruling 2620. If, for example, an animal falls into some water after it is hit by an arrow, and one knows that the animal has died due to being hit by both the arrow and falling into the water, the animal is not lawful to eat. In fact, if he does not know that the animal died solely due to the arrow, it is not lawful to eat.

Ruling 2621. If a person hunts an animal with a dog or a weapon that is usurped (ghaṣbī), the animal is lawful to eat and belongs to him. However, in addition to the fact that he has sinned, he must pay a fee to the owner for using the weapon or the dog.

Ruling 2622. If a person uses a sword or some other hunting weapon to cut off some parts of an animal’s body, such as its front and back legs, those parts are unlawful to eat. However, if the animal is slaughtered having fulfilled the conditions mentioned in Ruling 2618, then the rest of its body is lawful to eat. If the hunting weapon cuts the animal’s body in two, and the conditions mentioned above are fulfilled, and its head and neck remain on one part, and the hunter reaches the animal after it has died, then both parts of the body are lawful to eat. The same applies if the animal is alive but there is insufficient time to slaughter it. However, if there is sufficient time to slaughter it and it is possible that it may live for some time, then the part that does not have the head and neck is unlawful to eat. As for the part that has the head and neck, it is lawful to eat if the animal is slaughtered according to the instructions mentioned earlier; otherwise, that part is also unlawful to eat.

Ruling 2623. If an animal is cut in two with some wood, stone, or something else with which it is not correct to hunt an animal, the part that does not have the head and neck is unlawful to eat. As for the part that has the head and neck, it is lawful to eat if the animal is alive and it may stay alive for a while and it is slaughtered according to the instructions mentioned earlier; otherwise, that part is also unlawful to eat.

Ruling 2624. If an animal is killed by hunting or is slaughtered and a live offspring is taken out of its womb, in the event that the offspring is slaughtered according to the instructions mentioned earlier, it is lawful to eat; otherwise, it is unlawful to eat.

Ruling 2625. If an animal is killed by hunting or is slaughtered and a dead offspring is taken out of its womb, it is pure and lawful to eat in the event that it did not die before its mother was killed or due to a delay in taking it out of its mother’s womb, and its development is complete and hair or wool has grown on its body.