When game is seized by a predator but is still alive, what determines its permissibility upon death?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Hunting and Slaughter
Primary text
Game that possesses stable life (*ḥayāh mustaqirrah*) requires proper slaughter (*dhabh*) to be permissible to eat. If the animal's life is only like that of a slaughtered animal (i.e., residual life), it is permissible without further slaughter, according to the consensus, as proper slaughter is futile in such cases. If the game is found alive with stable life but the time available did not permit proper slaughter before it died, it is permissible, as its demise was not due to negligence. This principle is held by Qatadah, Malik, and Al-Shafi'i.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa maintains that it is not permissible if stable life existed and time permitted slaughter, because its permissibility became contingent upon proper slaughter, just as if ample time had been available. If the animal possesses stable life capable of sustaining it long-term, and the hunter was able to slaughter it but failed to do so before it died, it is impermissible, whether it had a wound that would have sustained it or not, based on the principle that a creature in such a state is treated as alive, and failing to slaughter it when able is equivalent to failing to slaughter non-game animals.