Rulings on destruction of property

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.