Is game permissible to eat if a hunter's dog kills it, but another unknown dog was present and may have participated in the killing?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Hunting and Slaughter
Primary text
If a hunter sends his dog after game, finds it dead, and discovers another unknown dog present, or if it is known that both killed it, or only the unknown dog killed it, the game is impermissible unless the hunter catches the game while it still has stable life and slaughters it. This is the view of Ata, Al-Qasim ibn Makhramah, Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the proponents of the view of reason. The evidence is the Hadith of Uday ibn Hatim, where the Prophet (PBUH) stated: 'Do not eat, for you pronounced the Name of God upon your dog, not upon the other,' or 'You do not know which one killed it.' The basis is that there is a doubt regarding the permissibility of the hunt, requiring the continuation of the prohibition.
Supporting text
If the hunter knows that only his dog killed it, or if the other dog was one whose hunting is permissible, the game is permissible because the reason for prohibition—pronouncing the Name of God only over his own dog—is absent. If the status of the co-participating dog was unknown but later confirmed to be one upon which the Name of God was pronounced and which met the conditions, it is permissible. Conversely, if the hunter believed it was permissible due to ignorance of the other dog's involvement or belief that it was a permissible dog, but the reality turned out otherwise, the game is prohibited, as the actual status of permissibility or prohibition is not altered by erroneous belief or ignorance of its existence.