by sending them out. As for us, our evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The 'ajma' (the animal/mute beast) is jubar (liability for its injury is void/waived)." This is agreed upon. That is to say: it is uncompensated. As for the verse, "nafsh" refers to grazing at night. Thus, this was in regards to crops that livestock naturally corrupt by grazing, and their own nature prompts them to consume them, unlike other things. Therefore, drawing an analogy between other things and this case is invalid.
Section: Whoever keeps a vicious dog and lets it loose, so that it bites a person or an animal, by night or by day, or tears a person’s garment, its owner is liable for what it destroyed because he was negligent in keeping it, unless a person enters his house without permission, in which case there is no liability for that; because the person was trespassing by entering and caused his own injury by provoking the dog to bite him. If he entered with the owner's permission, the owner is liable for it because he was the cause of its destruction. If the dog destroys something other than by biting, such as lapping from a person's vessel or urinating, its keeper is not liable; because this is not specific to a vicious dog. Al-Qadi said: If he keeps a cat that eats people's chicks, he is liable for what it destroys, just as he is liable for what a vicious dog destroys, and there is no difference between night and day. If it does not have a habit of doing so, its owner is not liable for its injury, like a dog if it is not vicious. If a vicious dog or a cat happens to be with a person without him keeping or choosing it, and it causes damage, he is not liable for it; because the destruction did not occur due to his action.
Section: If he keeps pigeons or other birds and lets them fly during the day, and they pick up grain, he is not liable for it; because they are like livestock, and the custom is to let them out.
1613 - Issue: He said: (And whatever the riding beast injures with its hand [foreleg], its rider is liable for what it inflicts in terms of life, injury, or property, and the same applies if he is leading or driving it).
This is the view of Shurayh, Abu Hanifah, and al-Shafi'i. Malik said: There is no liability upon him, due to the saying of
(10) In the original manuscript: "wa-kana" (and it was). (11) In B and M: "daman" (liability). (12) In the original manuscript: "firakh" (chicks). (13) This entire section is omitted from B.
