In the question, there is a meaning of the saying. Therefore, what has been made lawful for them follows, as if it were said: they are asking you what has been made lawful for them. And it was not said: what has been made lawful for us, as a narration of what they said, because they ask you in the third person, as you say: Zaid swore he would do it. If it had been said: I will do it and it has been made lawful for us, it would have been correct. And "what" is the subject, and (has been made lawful for them) is its predicate, as in your saying: what thing has been made lawful for them? Its meaning is: what has been made lawful for them from the foods? As if when it was recited to them what has been prohibited from them of the impure foods, they asked about what has been made lawful for them from it. So it was said: the good things have been made lawful for you, meaning what is not impure among them, which is everything whose prohibition has not come in the Book or the Sunnah or by the reasoning of a jurist. And what you have taught of the trained animals is an addition to the good things. [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And what you have taught is an addition to the good things..." Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: And he has excelled in pointing out this hidden secret, but the state of its originality is transferred and not necessary, and the implication of this explanation makes it one of the necessary attributes of the trainer of the established trained animals.] That is, it has been made lawful for you the good things and the hunting of what you have taught, so the addition is omitted. Or you can make (what) conditional, and its response is (so eat), and the trained animals are the hunters among the beasts and birds, like the dog, the leopard, the tiger, the eagle, the falcon, and the hawk. The trainer is the one who trains the trained animals and prepares them for hunting for their owner, and he disciplines them for that with what he knows of tricks and methods of training and education. Its derivation is from the dog, because training is most often done with dogs, so it is derived from its word due to its abundance from its kind. Or because the predator is called a dog. And from it is his saying, blessings and peace be upon him: "O Allah, unleash upon him a dog from Your dogs." [This is part of a narration reported by Al-Hakim. It will come in full in Surah Al-Najm.] So the lion ate him. Or from the dog which means ferocity. It is said: he is fierce with this, if he is ferocious with it. And the term MU-KALLIBIN is in the accusative case as a state of those you have taught. If you say: what is the benefit of this state when it is sufficient with 'you have taught'? I say: its benefit is that the one who knows the trained animals is an expert in his knowledge, trained in it, described as a trainer. And you teach them a second state or as a new statement. And there is a great benefit in it. [He returned to his speech and said: "And in His saying, you teach them what Allah has taught you, there is a great benefit..." Ahmad said: And in the verse is evidence that animals have knowledge, for teaching them means acquiring knowledge for them by its methods, contrary to those who deny that.] It is that every learner of knowledge should not take it except from the most knowledgeable of his people and the most skilled in it, and he should dive into its subtleties and realities, even if he needs to travel far for it. How many a learner from another who is proficient has wasted his days and bitten his fingers at the meeting of the experts from what Allah has taught you of the knowledge of training, for it is inspiration from Allah and acquired by reason. Or from what He has made known to you to teach it from following the hunt by sending his companion, and his stopping by his admonition, and his turning away by his supplication, and holding the prey for him and not eating from it.

And it is recited (مُكَلِّبِينَ) with the lightening. The form 'af'al and fa'al share many similarities. The holding back on its owner means that he does not eat from it, due to his saying, blessings and peace be upon him, to Adi ibn Hatim: "And if he eats from it, do not eat, for he has only held back for himself." [[Agreed upon from the hadith of Adi ibn Hatim.]] And from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him: If the hawk eats, then do not eat. [[I did not find it.]] The scholars differed, so they stipulated in the predatory beasts of the land that they leave eating, because they are trained by beating, but they did not stipulate this in the predatory birds. Some of them did not consider leaving eating at all and did not differentiate between holding back the whole and part. And from Salman, and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, and Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with them: If the dog eats two-thirds and one-third remains, and you mention the name of Allah upon it, then eat. [[The hadith of Salman was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah and Abdul Razzaq through Qatadah from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from Salman regarding the dog sent for hunting: If it eats two-thirds, then eat the remaining third. The hadith of Abu Huraira was similarly narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah through al-Sha'bi from him, who said: "If you send your dog and it eats, then eat, even if it has eaten a third." The hadith of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas was also narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah from the narration of Bakr ibn al-Ashajj from Hamid ibn Malik from Sa'd regarding hunting with the dog, he said: "Eat it, even if there is only a piece of it left."]] If you say: To what does the pronoun in the saying وَاذْكُرُوا اسْمَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ return? I say: It either returns to what you have held back, meaning you have named it when you have caught it, or to what you know of the birds of prey, meaning you have named it upon sending it.