5:4
They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.
The following excerpt is taken from “The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam” by Yusuf Al Qaradawi pg. 61- 66:
The text outlines ethical and legal conditions governing hunting in Islamic law, presenting them as parallel to the rules of ritual slaughter. First, the hunter must belong to a community whose slaughter is recognized as lawful (e.g., Muslims and certain scripturally affiliated groups). Hunting is framed as permissible only when connected to a legitimate benefit—such as consumption or necessity—and not merely for sport. Prophetic reports are cited to emphasize moral accountability for killing animals without purpose, portraying such acts as blameworthy and subject to divine questioning on the Day of Judgment. In addition, hunting is prohibited for a Muslim in the state of iḥrām during ḥajj or ʿumrah, a period characterized by heightened restraint and sanctity in which harming game is expressly forbidden (Qur’ān 5:95; 5:2).
Regarding the game itself, the discussion states that hunting applies primarily to animals that cannot be readily controlled for proper slaughter. If the hunter reaches the animal while clear signs of life remain, the animal should be slaughtered in the prescribed manner, with throat-cutting presented as the preferred method. However, if the animal is only barely alive and dies before slaughter occurs, the meat is still treated as permissible. A Prophetic narration recorded in the major ḥadīth collections is cited to support this rule: when a trained hunting dog captures game and the hunter arrives while it is still alive, the hunter should slaughter it.
The text distinguishes two broad categories of hunting instruments: weapons (such as arrows, spears, and swords) and trained hunting animals (such as dogs, falcons, and similar animals). When hunting with weapons, two conditions are emphasized. First, the weapon must penetrate and wound; death caused by blunt impact alone does not render the animal lawful. The report of ʿAdī b. Ḥātim is used to differentiate between a weapon that pierces the body and one that kills by its side-impact, permitting the former and disallowing the latter (reported in al-Bukhārī and Muslim). Based on this reasoning, the text argues that modern firearms are included by analogy because bullets penetrate more deeply than traditional projectiles. It further clarifies that earlier narrations concerning a bandūqah refer to clay pellets rather than modern ammunition and connects this with Prophetic disapproval of hunting by stone-throwing due to cruelty and unreliability. Second, the hunter must pronounce the name of Allah at the time of launching the weapon, treating this condition as integral to lawful hunting.
For hunting with trained animals (e.g., dogs or falcons), the text identifies three primary requirements: the animal must be trained, it must capture the prey for its owner rather than for itself, and the name of Allah must be pronounced when sending it for the chase (Qur’ān 5:4). “Training” is described in functional terms—obedience to recall, responsiveness to direction, and restraint when commanded—while noting that practical common sense can often determine whether training is genuine. The condition of “catching for the owner” is linked to whether the animal eats from the prey. A Prophetic narration states that if a dog eats part of the game, the meat is not lawful for the hunter, whereas if it kills without eating, it is permissible (reported by Aḥmad, al-Bukhārī, and Muslim). Some jurists, the text notes, differentiate between dogs and birds of prey, permitting what is partially eaten by hunting birds but not by dogs; this is explained as reinforcing training standards and protecting human dignity by discouraging consumption of an animal’s leavings.
The requirement of pronouncing Allah’s name is further emphasized through a case in which a second dog is found near the prey. If the hunter cannot determine whether his own dog or another dog caught the game, consumption is prohibited, since Allah’s name was invoked only over the hunter’s animal (reported from ʿAdī b. Ḥātim). However, the text also notes that if the hunter forgets to pronounce Allah’s name, some scholars allow rectification by mentioning it at the time of eating, appealing to the principle that unintentional forgetfulness is forgiven in Islamic law.
Finally, the text addresses situations in which the hunter finds the game dead after a delay. The meat is considered lawful if specific conditions are met: the animal is not found in water (since the cause of death could be drowning rather than the hunter’s weapon); it bears no wounds other than the hunter’s injury (i.e., no signs of predation); and it has not decayed. Prophetic narrations are cited to support each condition, including permission to eat what remains unspoiled if game is found after several days (reported in Muslim).
References:
Al-Qaradawi, Yusuf (1960). The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam. (p. 61-66).