كِتَابُ الصَّيْدِ وَالذَّبَائِحِHunting and Slaughter

¹ The statement: “When you send your dog, etc.”: In “Al-Hidayah,” it is stated: If one sends a trained dog or falcon and mentions Allah’s name upon sending, and it catches and wounds the game, causing it to die, it is permissible to eat, based on the hadith of Adi. This is because the dog or falcon is a tool, and slaughter is not achieved by the tool alone except through its use, which is sending, akin to shooting or using a knife. Thus, mentioning Allah’s name is necessary. If omitted forgetfully, it is still permissible, as explained. The prohibition of omitting the name intentionally applies to slaughtered animals. Wounding is required in the apparent narration, and the fatwa is based on it to ensure emergency slaughter, which is wounding anywhere on the body, attributed to the tool’s use. The verse And [game caught by] what you have trained of hunting animals (Qur’an 5:4) indicates the requirement of wounding, as it is derived from “jaraha” (wounding), meaning a hunting predator with fangs or claws. There is no contradiction, and it ensures certainty. Abu Yusuf did not require wounding, reverting to the first interpretation, and our response is as stated. If the dog or cheetah eats from it, it is not eaten; if the falcon eats, it is eaten. The difference is that a falcon’s body cannot withstand beating, but a dog’s can, so it is beaten to stop eating. The sign of a dog’s training is refraining from its habit of eating and seizing, while a falcon’s wild nature and response to a call are its training sign. The statement “If it has eaten, etc.” is supported by Adi’s hadith, which is evidence against Malik and al-Shafi’i’s old opinion permitting what a dog eats from. In “Nata’ij al-Afkar,” it is said: If it is argued that Abu Tha’labah al-Khushani’s narration, which permits eating what a dog eats from, supports Malik and al-Shafi’i, the response is that Abu Tha’labah’s narration is countered by Adi’s, which is preferred because it prohibits what a dog eats from, and in jurisprudence, the prohibitive is preferred over the permissive in conflicts, making it the abrogating narration. Thus, Adi’s hadith is followed over Abu Tha’labah’s. In “Al-Hidayah,” it is stated: If the sender finds the game alive, he must slaughter it; if he neglects to do so and it dies, it is not eaten, as with a falcon or arrow, because he could perform the original act before achieving the purpose of the substitute. If the dog strangles it without wounding, it is not eaten, as wounding is a condition in the apparent narration. If an untrained dog, a Magian’s dog, or a dog sent without mentioning Allah’s name participates, it is not eaten, as per Adi’s hadith, because the permissible and forbidden combine, and prohibition prevails by text or precaution.

² The statement: “When you shoot your arrow, etc.”: If an arrow hits game, and it struggles to move or fly with difficulty due to the arrow and disappears from sight, if the shooter does not stop pursuing and finds it dead, it is permissible. If he stops pursuing and finds it dead, it is not permissible, based on the Prophet’s (ﷺ) statement to Abu Tha’labah: “If you shoot your arrow and it disappears for three days.” In this narration: “If it disappears for a day and you find it, eat it unless it has spoiled.” It is narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) disliked eating game that disappears from the shooter, saying: “Perhaps the vermin of the earth killed it.” This applies when one stops pursuing, while the first applies when one does not stop. It is possible it died from another cause, so precaution is taken when possible. The speculative in prohibitions is treated as certain, but not when precaution is impossible due to necessity, as it would close the door to hunting. Hunting often occurs in wildernesses where game disappears frequently, so if one does not stop pursuing, it is permissible to eat to avoid hardship. If one engages in other tasks, it is forbidden, which is the analogy for all cases, but we abandon it for necessity when precaution is impossible, and it remains on the principle when precaution is possible. For permissibility, no wound other than the arrow’s must be found. This is the summary of what is in the commentaries of “Al-Kanz.”

³ The statement: “If you find it drowned, etc.”: In “Al-Hidayah,” it is stated: If game is shot and falls into water, onto a roof, or a mountain and then falls to the ground, it is not eaten, as it is a “mutaraddiyah” (fallen), which is forbidden by text. It may have died from a cause other than the arrow, as water or falling from a height is deadly. This is supported by the Prophet’s (ﷺ) statement to Adi: “If your shot falls into water, do not eat, for you do not know whether the water or your arrow killed it.” If it falls directly on the ground, it is eaten, as precaution is impossible, and considering it would close the door to hunting. Unlike the former cases, precaution is possible, so when the causes of prohibition and permissibility combine and precaution is possible, prohibition prevails for caution. If precaution is impossible, its existence is treated as non-existent, as obligation is according to capacity.

¹ The statement: “Even if he does not mention [Allah’s name] if he did not do so intentionally”: In “Al-Hidayah,” it is stated: If the slaughterer omits mentioning Allah’s name intentionally, the slaughter is a dead animal and not eaten; if forgotten, it is eaten according to us. Al-Shafi’i said: It is eaten in both cases. Malik said: It is not eaten in either case. The Muslim and the person of the Book are equal in omitting the name. The same applies to omitting the name when sending a falcon, dog, or shooting. Al-Shafi’i’s opinion contradicts consensus, as there is no dispute among those before him about the prohibition of intentionally omitting the name. The dispute is about forgetting, with Ibn Umar’s opinion prohibiting it, and Ali and Ibn Abbas permitting it, unlike intentional omission, which is forbidden by consensus. Thus, Abu Yusuf and the scholars said: Intentionally omitting the name is forbidden by consensus, and a judge’s ruling permitting its sale is invalid as it contradicts consensus. Al-Allamah al-Ayni said: This hadith and al-Bukhari’s comment support us.

² The statement: “Aisha’s hadith, etc.”: Its complete narration, as reported by al-Bukhari from Aisha, states: They said: “O Messenger of Allah! There are people recently from polytheism who bring us meat, and we do not know if they mentioned Allah’s name over it.” He said: “Mention Allah’s name yourselves and eat.” In “Umdat al-Qari,” it is said: Some used this hadith to argue that mentioning Allah’s name on slaughter is not obligatory, as if it were, the Prophet (ﷺ) would not have permitted eating the Bedouins’ slaughter. The response is that this was at the beginning of Islam, as Malik added at the end: “And that was at the beginning of Islam.” It is possible they were not ignorant of mentioning the name.

¹ The statement: “O Prophet of Allah, we are in the land of the People of the Book, may we eat from their vessels, etc.”: Abu Tha’labah asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) about two issues. The first was about eating from the vessels of the People of the Book. The Prophet (ﷺ) answered: “If you find others, meaning other than the vessels of the People of the Book, do not eat from them; otherwise, wash them and eat from them.” This distinction suggests dislike for using them if others are available. However, jurists said it is permissible to use them after washing without dislike, whether others are available or not. The response is that the prohibition refers to vessels used for cooking pork or drinking wine. They are prohibited even after washing due to repugnance and their association with impurity. The jurists meant vessels of disbelievers not typically used for impurities. I say: The reality is that Abu Tha’labah’s hadith prioritizes the apparent over the principle, as the principle is that the vessels of the People of the Book and Magians are pure. Yet, washing is commanded when no others are found. The correct view is that the ruling follows the principle unless impurity is confirmed. The hadith is answered in two ways: First, the command to wash is for precaution and recommendation. Second, the hadith refers to cases where impurity is confirmed, as supported by Abu Dawud’s narration: “We neighbor the People of the Book, and they cook pork in their pots and drink wine in their vessels.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “If you find others, eat and drink from them. If you find no others, wash them with water and eat and drink.” Understand this.

¹ The statement: “Eat what they catch for you”: This general statement aligns with Allah’s saying: So eat of what they catch for you (Qur’an 5:4), without requiring wounding, supporting the view of al-Hasan from Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf that wounding is not a condition. However, the apparent position of the school is that wounding is required for predators with fangs or claws, in any part of the body Amelia: body, to ensure emergency slaughter. They said: The purpose is to let out the flowing blood, which is achieved by wounding, as in voluntary slaughter or shooting with an arrow. If it does not wound, it becomes like a “mawqudha” (struck animal), which is forbidden by text. The fatwa is based on the apparent narration. The principle here is that if death is certainly caused by wounding, it is eaten; if caused by weight or there is doubt, it is not eaten, either absolutely or as a precaution. This is taken from “Al-Mirqat” and “Al-Inayah.”

² The statement: “And we shoot with the mi’rad, etc.”: In “Al-Hidayah,” it is stated: What is struck by the side of the mi’rad is not eaten; if it wounds, it is eaten, based on the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying: “What it hits with its edge, eat; what it hits with its side, do not eat.” This is because wounding is necessary to fulfill the meaning of slaughter, as explained earlier. What is killed by a pellet is not eaten, as it crushes and breaks without wounding, like a mi’rad that does not pierce. In “Al-Mirqat,” al-Nawawi said: The “mawqudha” is what is killed by a non-sharp object like a stick or stone. They agreed that if hunted with a mi’rad and killed by its edge, it is permissible; if by its side, it is not. They said nothing killed by a pellet is permissible, per the mi’rad hadith. Makhul, al-Awza’i, and other Syrian jurists said what is killed by a mi’rad or pellet is permissible.

³ The statement: “We were forbidden from the game of a Magian’s dog”: This does not mean, as the wording might suggest, that it is specific to a Magian’s dog. Rather, it refers to game caught by a dog, whether belonging to a Muslim or a Magian. A Muslim’s game is permissible, whether caught by a Muslim’s or Magian’s dog. This is stated in “Al-Kawkab al-Durri.” In “Al-Hidayah,” it is said: The game of a Magian, apostate, or idolater is not eaten, as they are not among those whose slaughter is valid, as explained in the chapter on slaughter. This is unlike a Christian or Jew, whose slaughter is valid voluntarily or by necessity. In “Al-Mirqat,” it is said: Our scholars stated that the slaughterer must be a Muslim, per Allah’s saying: Except what you [are able to] slaughter (Qur’an 5:3), or a person of the Book, even if a combatant, per: The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you (Qur’an 5:5). This refers to their slaughtered animals, as unslaughtered food is permissible from any disbeliever. It is required that the person of the Book not mention other than Allah during slaughter; if they mention the Messiah or Uzayr, their slaughter is not permissible, per: And that which has been dedicated to other than Allah (Qur’an 5:3). This excludes Magians or idolaters, as they are like Magians in lacking monotheism.

¹ The statement: “Whoever kills a sparrow or anything above it without its right, etc.”: In “Nayl al-Awtar,” it indicates the prohibition of killing a sparrow or similar for mere sport. Thus, in “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar,” it is permissible to hunt what is edible for its meat or what is inedible for its skin, hair, feathers, or to repel its harm, all legislated by the general text: And when you are lawful [from ihram], then hunt (Qur’an 5:2).

² The statement: “They were cutting the humps of camels and the fat-tails of sheep, etc.”: In “Al-Bada’i,” if a piece is cut from a sheep’s fat-tail or thigh, the cut part is not permissible, even if the sheep is slaughtered afterward, as the ruling of slaughter does not apply to the separated part at the time of cutting, since the sheep was alive then, and when it died, the part was already separated. The ruling of slaughter does not purify a separated part. In “Al-Hidayah,” if one shoots game and cuts off a limb, the game is eaten, as shooting with wounding permits it, and the wound is inevitably present, making it permissible, but the limb is not eaten. Al-Shafi’i said both are eaten. We rely on this hadith. If a sheep’s neck is struck, severing its head, it is permissible due to cutting the jugular veins, but this act is disliked for reaching the spinal cord.

³ The statement: “May Allah curse whoever slaughters for other than Allah”: In “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar,” for example, slaughtering for the arrival of a governor or similar dignitary is forbidden, as it is dedicated to other than Allah, even if Allah’s name is mentioned. Slaughtering for a guest is not forbidden, as it is the way of Ibrahim and honoring a guest is honoring Allah. The difference is that if offered for eating, the slaughter is for Allah with benefit to the guest, feast, or profit; if given to another for their glorification, it is forbidden. There are two opinions on whether it constitutes disbelief, per “Bazzaziyyah” and “Sharh Wahbaniyyah.” In “Radd al-Muhtar,” it is said: Does it constitute disbelief? Meaning in his private relation with Allah, as a Muslim’s disbelief is not ruled upon if his words or actions can be interpreted positively or if there is disagreement about his disbelief.

¹ The statement: “Whatever makes the blood flow, etc.”: In “Al-Bada’i,” tools are of two types: cutting and breaking. Cutting tools are sharp or dull. Sharp ones, whether iron or not, are permissible for slaughter. The basis for allowing non-iron slaughter is Adi ibn Hatim’s narration: He said, “O Messenger of Allah, if one of us hits game without a knife, can he slaughter with a flint or a stick’s edge?” He said: “Make the blood flow with whatever you wish and mention Allah’s name.” A dull tool is permissible if it cuts, achieving the meaning of slaughter, but is disliked for causing unnecessary pain. The Prophet (ﷺ) ordered sharpening the blade and easing the animal. Slaughtering with a detached nail or tooth is permissible but disliked. Al-Shafi’i said it is not permissible due to this hadith, as it excludes the tooth and nail from permissibility, making it a prohibition. We say: Since the jugular veins are cut, it is permissible, as with flint or cane. The hadith refers to an attached tooth or nail, as Abyssinians did so to show prowess, which applies to attached ones. Some narrations state: “Except what is bitten with a tooth or cut with a nail,” referring to attached ones. A breaking tool, like an attached nail or tooth, is not permissible by consensus; if used, it is a dead animal, per the hadith, as it relies on the animal, causing strangulation. They said: If another takes his hand and passes it like a knife while silent, it is permissible and eaten.

² The statement: “A man shot it with an arrow, etc.”: In “Al-Hidayah,” domesticated game’s slaughter is by cutting, while wild livestock’s is by wounding or piercing, as emergency slaughter is resorted to when voluntary slaughter is impossible, which is evident in the latter case.

³ The statement: “She broke a stone and slaughtered it with it, etc.”: In “Al-Binayah,” it is best to use this hadith as evidence for our scholars. The reasoning is that texts are based on rationale, and a stone is suitable for slaughter by wounding, as are a detached nail or tooth, unlike an attached one, which is the Abyssinian knife, as per the first hadith’s interpretation.

⁴ The statement: “It was killed by strangling”: Al-Tahawi said in “Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar”: Do you not see that Ibn Abbas clarified in this hadith that the prohibition of eating what is slaughtered with a nail is due to strangling, as it is slaughtered with the hand, making it strangled? This indicates that the prohibition applies to an attached nail, not a detached one, and similarly for a tooth, as it refers to an attached tooth in the mouth, not a detached one. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on them all).

¹ The statement: “This is in necessity”: Our scholars said: A slaughter not performed is forbidden, per Allah’s saying: Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter (Qur’an 5:3). Emergency slaughter is wounding anywhere on the body, while voluntary slaughter is cutting between the throat and chest. The slaughter veins are the trachea (airway), esophagus (food and drink passage), and two jugular veins. It is permissible to cut any three of them. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

² The statement: “Forbade eating the mujaththamah, etc.”: This killing is neither voluntary nor emergency slaughter, as understood from “Al-Mirqat.”

¹ The statement: “Forbade on the day of Khaybar every fanged predator, etc.”: In “Al-Hidayah,” it is said: Eating fanged predators or clawed birds is not permissible.

² The statement: “Confining an animal or other, etc.”: Meaning a living creature is confined without food or drink until it dies. His saying “for killing” means for the purpose of killing by such confinement. In “Sharh al-Sunnah,” it means confining an animal and shooting at it until it dies. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

¹ The statement: “Forbade striking the face”: This applies to the face of anything except a disbeliever during combat, as a Muslim may resort to this in such a situation.

² The statement: “And branding on the face”: Al-Nawawi said: Branding on the face is forbidden by consensus. For humans, it is prohibited due to their dignity and lack of necessity, as it causes torment. For non-humans, a group of Shafi’i scholars said it is disliked, while al-Baghawi indicated it is prohibited, which is the apparent meaning of this hadith, as cursing implies prohibition. Branding elsewhere is recommended for zakat or jizyah animals and permissible for others. It is recommended to brand sheep on their ears and camels and cattle at the base of their thighs for identification. In “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar,” it is permissible to bleed or cauterize animals. In “Umdat al-Qari,” Abu Hanifah said it is disliked as it causes torment and mutilation, which are prohibited. The response is that the prohibition is general, while the branding hadith is specific, so the specific takes precedence. I say: If their concurrence is established, the specific overrides the general; otherwise, it does not.

¹ The statement: “Holding a branding iron, branding the camels of charity”: This is for marking to distinguish them from others, understood as not on the face, as the prohibition is specific to the face or without necessity. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

³ The statement: “Let one of you sharpen his blade and ease his slaughter”: Thus, in “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar,” it is recommended to sharpen the blade before laying down the animal, and it is disliked afterward, as is dragging it by its leg to the slaughter place or slaughtering from the nape if it remains alive until the veins are cut; otherwise, it is not permissible as it dies without slaughter. In “Al-Mirqat,” it is recommended not to sharpen in the animal’s presence, not to slaughter one in another’s presence, nor to drag it to the slaughter place. Our scholars said: Skinning before it cools is disliked, as is “nakh” (reaching the spinal cord, a white vein in the neck’s bone). Some say “nakh” means extending the head to expose the slaughter place or breaking the neck before it calms, all disliked for causing unnecessary torment to the animal.

¹ The statement: “The slaughter of the fetus is the slaughter of its mother”: Our scholars said: Imam Abu Hanifah interpreted it as a simile, meaning like the slaughter of its mother, as it is narrated with the accusative case. Even if narrated in the nominative, it is the same, as it is stronger in simile than the former. This is supported by the precedence of mentioning the fetus’s slaughter and by what is narrated in Muhammad’s “Muwatta” from Ibrahim: “The slaughter of one soul is not the slaughter of two.” In “Al-Hidayah,” Abu Hanifah said: If a camel or cow is slaughtered and a dead fetus is found, whether formed or not, it is not eaten. This is the view of Zufar and al-Hasan ibn Ziyad. Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and al-Shafi’i said: If fully formed, it is eaten, based on the hadith, meaning the mother’s slaughter substitutes for the fetus’s. Al-Sarakhsi in “Al-Mabsut” cited: And [those animals] killed by strangling (Qur’an 5:3), as the fetus, at best, is alive during the mother’s slaughter and dies by suffocation, which is a “munkhaniqah” (strangled). The Prophet (ﷺ) said to Adi ibn Hatim: “If your shot falls into water, do not eat, for you do not know whether the water or your arrow killed it.” Eating is prohibited when there is doubt about the cause of death, which applies to the fetus, as it is unknown whether it died from the mother’s slaughter or suffocation. Precaution is possible, as it may be separated alive and slaughtered. Ibrahim said: The slaughter of one soul is not the slaughter of two. The fetus is a separate soul in life, sustained by Allah in the mother without nourishment or as He wills. After separation, it may be nourished by the mother’s milk, not as a part. In other rulings, it follows the mother, so its slaughter cannot be established without her, as it cannot be separated alive after her death. If separated alive and dies, it is not permissible. The purpose of slaughter is to let out flowing blood to distinguish pure from impure, which the mother’s slaughter does not achieve for the fetus, nor does it purify its meat through cooking. This responds to their claim that slaughter is for leniency, as it is not waived by excuse, like a dog killing game by suffocation. Slaughtering a pregnant animal is permissible, as the fetus may be separated alive and slaughtered, and the mother’s meat is the goal. The hadith means a simile, not substitution, as the fetus is mentioned first, unlike a substitute, which would mention the agent first. In “Al-Mirqat,” Abu Sa’id al-Khudri’s hadith states: We found a fetus in its belly; should we discard or eat it? He said: “Eat it if you wish.” Their hesitation was whether the fetus is permissible to slaughter due to mercy for its small size. The response is that there is no difference between the fetus and mother in slaughter, as both have souls, made permissible by slaughter. Otherwise, it is a dead animal, prohibited by: Prohibited to you are dead animals (Qur’an 5:3). In “Al-Bada’i,” if the fetus emerges alive after the mother’s slaughter and is slaughtered, it is permissible; if it dies before, it is not eaten without disagreement. In “Bazl al-Majhud,” al-Shami cited “Al-Kifayah”: If birth coincides with slaughter, it is disliked, per the Imam’s view. If it emerges alive without time to slaughter and dies, it is eaten, per Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. This contradicts “Al-Bada’i”’s general statement that it is not eaten if it dies before slaughter. If it emerges dead and not fully formed, it is not eaten by all, as it is like a clot. If fully formed, Abu Hanifah, Zufar, and al-Hasan said it is not eaten; Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and al-Shafi’i said it is permissible, citing the hadith, as it implies the mother’s slaughter purifies the fetus, as it is legally and physically dependent. Abu Hanifah cited: Prohibited to you are dead animals and blood (Qur’an 5:3), as the fetus is a dead animal without life, included in the text. If argued that a dead animal implies prior life, which is unknown for the fetus, the response is that prior life is not a condition, per: And you were dead, then He brought you to life (Qur’an 2:28). Even if conceded, it may have been alive and died with the mother, so it is prohibited as a precaution. As a principle in life, it requires its own slaughter. Its potential to survive after the mother’s slaughter proves it is a separate entity, not dependent on her life, requiring its own slaughter, as slaughter ends life. Since it can survive after the mother’s slaughter, her slaughter does not let out its blood, as blood-dependent animals typically cannot live without blood. Thus, its flowing blood remains, making it prohibited, per: Blood poured forth (Qur’an 6:145) and Prohibited to you are dead animals and blood (Qur’an 5:3). Its meat is also prohibited, as it cannot be distinguished from its blood. The hadith, narrated in the accusative, means like the mother’s slaughter, as similes may omit the particle, per: And it passes like the passing of clouds (Qur’an 27:88) and They look at you like the look of one fainting from death (Qur’an 47:20). This supports our view, as equating their slaughter implies both require it. The nominative narration may also imply a simile or substitution, as they claim, but it is a single report in a matter of general concern, indicating lack of establishment, as it would be widely known if certain.

¹ The statement: “Fish and locusts are all purified”: According to us, no aquatic animal is eaten except non-floating fish. Aquatic refers to those born and living in water, not land-born animals living in water, like some birds, which are eaten. Malik, al-Shafi’i, and others, including Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla, said all sea creatures are eaten, even eels, predators, dogs, and humans, though some Malikis excluded dogs and pigs. They cite: Lawful to you is the game of the sea (Qur’an 5:96) without distinction, and the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying: “Its water is pure, and its dead are lawful.” We cite: And He forbids them what is evil (Qur’an 7:157), as non-fish sea creatures are impure. The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade treatment with medicine containing frogs and the sale of crabs. The “game” in the verse refers to hunting, which is permissible even for what is not eaten. The “dead” in the hadith refers to fish, per: “Two dead things and two bloods are made lawful for us: fish and locusts, liver and spleen.” Texts prohibiting predators and pigs apply to both land and sea. In “Mulla Miskin” and others, the dispute over sale and eating is the same. Al-Zayla’i said their sale is permissible by consensus due to their purity. “Non-floating” means fish is eaten when not floating; floating fish is not eaten according to us. Malik and al-Shafi’i said floating fish is permissible, citing the hadith. We cite the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying: “Eat what the sea casts out or leaves behind; do not eat what dies in it and floats.” Their evidence is inapplicable, as “sea’s dead” refers to what it casts out, attributed to the sea, not what dies in it from disease or otherwise. A floating fish is one that dies naturally in the water, rising and appearing belly-up. If its back is up, it is not floating and is eaten. What is in the belly of a floating fish is eaten. “Floating” is from “tafa” (to rise on water). The principle is that if the cause of death is known, e.g., cast out by the sea, confined in a small enclosure, swallowed by a fish, killed by a water bird, or frozen in ice, it is eaten, as the cause is known. If it dies from water’s heat, cold, or recession, Hisham narrated from Muhammad: If its head is above water, it is not eaten; if its tail is in water and head exposed, it is eaten, as the head’s exposure caused death, unlike the tail. The condition is knowing the cause of death. If a limb is severed by a blow, both it and the fish are eaten. This is from “Al-Kanz” commentaries.