Aslam

Praise be to Allah. Allaah

has forbidden aggression against people’s property and taking it unlawfully.

He has prescribed that whatever is destroyed unlawfully is to be replaced,

even if it is destroyed by mistake. Whoever destroys the property of

another person which was sacred (i.e., protected by sharee’ah), and

destroys it without the owner’s permission, is obliged to replace it.

Imaam

al-Muwaffaq said: “We do not know of any dispute concerning this matter.

It is the same regardless of whether that was done deliberately or by

mistake, and whether (the person who destroyed it) was told by someone

else to do it or not. The same applies if he causes it to be destroyed,

such as if he opens a door and causes something which was locked up

to be lost, or he tilts a vessel and allows what is inside it to flow

out and be lost – he is obliged to replace it. The same applies if he

loosens the reins of an animal or ties it up, and it gets lost or dies

– he has to replace it. The same applies if he ties up an animal in

a narrow street, resulting in a person stumbling over it and dying or

being injured as a result – he is responsible for that because he transgressed

the limits by tying it up in a narrow street. The same applies if he

stops his car in the street resulting in another car or a person hitting

it, causing harm – he is responsible because of the report narrated

by al-Daaraqutni and others, which says that whoever makes an animal

stop in the way of the Muslims or in one of their marketplaces, and

it steps with its front or back leg on something  – he is responsible.

The same applies if he leaves a pile of mud or some wood or rocks in

the street, or he digs a hole and that results in a passer-by being

killed or injured, or he throws a melon rind or similar thing into the

street, or spills water and someone else slips on it and is killed or

injured, the one who did that in all cases is responsible, because by

doing that he was transgressing.  How lightly these matters are

taken nowadays. How often holes are dug in the streets and the way is

blocked, and they put obstacles in the roads, and how much harm and

damage results from these actions, without anyone watching over such

matters and putting them right, to the extent that a person may take

over the entire road and use it for his own purposes, annoying and causing

harm to passers-by, and not caring at all that he may be sinning by

doing that. Another of the cases in which a person is held to be responsible

is if he keeps a vicious dog and it attacks a passer-by or kills someone

– he is held to be responsible because by keeping this dog he was transgressing.

If he digs a well in his courtyard for his own purposes he is held to

be responsible for any harm that this may cause, because he is obliged

to maintain it in a manner that does not harm passers-by. If he leaves

it without taking proper care of it, then he is transgressing. If he

has livestock he has to take proper care of them at night to prevent

them from damaging people’s crops; if he leaves them and they do damage

someone’s crops, he is held to be responsible for that, because the

Prophet

(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon them) decreed that people who

have property must take care of it during the day, and whatever is damaged

at night, they must be compensated for that.” (Narrated by Ahmad, Abu

Dawood and Ibn Maajah). So the owner of an animal is not held to be

responsible any damage that was done during the day, unless he sent

the animal near a place where it could do damage. Imaam al-Baghawi (may

Allaah have mercy on him) said: “The scholars said that whatever is

destroyed at night, the owner (of the animal) is held to be responsible

for that, because customarily the owners of gardens and orchards guard

them during the day, and the owners of livestock guard them at night,

so whoever goes against that practice has gone against what is customary.

This applies if the owner of the animals is not with them; if he is

with them then he is held to be responsible for whatever damage they

did.”

Allaah

mentioned the story of Dawood and Sulaymaan concerning this matter,

as He said (interpretation of the meaning):

“And (remember) Dawood (David) and Sulaymaan (Solomon),

when they gave judgement in the case of the field in which the sheep

of certain people had pastured at night; and We were witness to their

judgement.

And We made Sulaymaan (Solomon) to understand (the case);

and to each of them We gave Hukm (right judgement of the affairs and

Prophethood) and knowledge…”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:78]

Shaykh

al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “The text

of the Qur’aan praised Sulaymaan for his understanding that compensation

meant replacing it with something similar. Pasturing the sheep at night

means taking them out to graze at night, which took place in a vineyard.

Dawood ruled that the value of what had been destroyed should be paid

in compensation. He thought that the sheep were equal in value to the

destroyed crops, and he wanted to give them to the owner of the cultivated

field. But Sulaymaan ruled that the owners of the sheep were obliged

to pay compensation, and that they should repay in kind, by tending

the field until it was restored to its former state. He also took into

account the benefits that would be lost whilst the field was being restored,

so he ruled that the owners of the garden were to be given the livestock

and that they could take what the produced until it was equivalent to

the produce of the garden. They could benefit from the produce of the

sheep in place of the produce of the garden which they had lost. He

found that what the sheep produced during this period would be equivalent

to what the garden would have produced. This is the knowledge which

Allaah gave exclusively to Sulaymaan and for which He praised him.”

If

the animal is under the control of a rider or of a person who is leading

it or driving it, then he is responsible for any damage that it may

cause with its front legs or mouth, but not for any damage that it may

cause with its back legs, because of the hadeeth, “There is no compensation

for the back legs.” According to the report of Abu Hurayrah, (the hadeeth

is), “There is no compensation for the back legs of a dumb animal.”

The animal is described as dumb because it does not speak. Compensation

here refers to compensation for damage done by the animal.

Shaykh

al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “In the case

of every dumb animal – such as cattle, and sheep – there is no compensation

for damage done by the animal if it did it by itself (i.e., was not

under the control of anyone), such as if it ran away from the person

under whose control it was and it did some damage. No one is obliged

to pay any compensation, so long as it was not vicious and its owner

was not being negligent about restraining it at night or keeping it

away from the markets and gathering-places of the Muslims. More than

one of (of the scholars) mentioned that there is no compensation to

be paid if the animal had escaped and was going by itself without anyone

leading it or driving it, except in the case of savage animals.”

If

it attacks a human being or another animal, and the only way of warding

it off is by killing it, and it is killed, then there is no obligation

to pay compensation, because it was killed in self-defence, and defending

oneself is permissible. So he does not have to pay compensation for

the consequences and because he killed it in order to ward off its evil;

if he killed it in order to ward off its evil, then the attacker is

the one who has killed himself.

Shaykh

Taqiy al-Deen said: “He has to defend himself from the one who is attacking

him, and if he can only do that by killing him (the attacker), then

he has the right to do that, according to the consensus of the Fuqahaa’”.

Among

the items for which there is no obligation to pay compensation if they

are destroyed are: musical instruments; crosses; vessels for wine; books

of misguidance, myths and promiscuous material, because Ahmad narrated

from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet

(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told him to take a dagger

then they both went out to the market of Madeenah in which there were

wineskins that had been brought from Syria. (Ibn ‘Umar) tore them open

in the presence of the Prophet

(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) spilled their contents,

and he commanded his companions to do likewise.” This hadeeth indicates

that it is required to destroy them and that no compensation for that

is due. But their destruction must be done on the authority of the ruler

and under his supervision, so as to protect people’s interests and avoid

mischief.