and has imposed liability for whatever is damaged of the property
taken without right even if by mistake. Whoever damages another's
property - and this being considerable - without its owner's
permission, is financially liable to make up for it.
Imaam Al-Muwaffaq said: "There is no juristic disagreementin this
regard, whether the damage is intentional or not, andwhether the one
causing it is legally accountable or not."
Similarly, whoever causes the damage of another's wealth is
financially liable for it. For example, when one opens a gate causing
what is locked in to be lost or stolen, or when one unfastens a
container causing what is therein to be wasted and damaged, one is
liable for them. Likewise, if someone ties a riding animal in a narrow
street causinga passerby to stumble and be harmed or injured, he has
to pay him for the damage caused. This is exactly like the one who
parks a car in the middle of the street and as a result another car or
a person is hit, whereby damage is caused, the one who has parked the
car is liable to make up for the damage. This opinion is based on the
Hadeeth related by Ad-Daraqutni and other compilers of Hadeeth that
states: "If one ties a riding animal in oneof the pathways of the
Muslims, or in one of their markets, and it treads on someone (or
something) by one of its front or back legs, one is liable for it."
[Ad-Daraqutni and Al-Bayhaqi]
The same ruling applies when one leaves clay, a piece of wood or a
stone in a pathway or digs a hole in it, causing harm or injury to a
passerby. In the same way, ifsomeone throws watermelon peels or lets
water in the street, causing a passerby to slip and getinjured, he is
to make up for it. People who do all such actions are financially
liable for the resulting damage, as such deeds are regarded as
transgression.
Unfortunately, there are many such instances of carelessness
everywhere nowadays; too many holes are heedlessly dug on the roads
and streets, too many blocks and obstacles are put therein, and too
much damage is caused by that heedlessness due to the lack of control
and supervision. Some people may even occupy streets as if they were
their own, dedicating them for their own use, causing harm to those
passing by without caring for the sins they are committing in this way
or the punishment that awaits them.
Among the matters that incur financial liability is when one has a mad
dog that assaults the passersby or bites any of them. The owner of the
dog is liable to make up for the resulting damages or injuries, for
having such a dog is an act of transgression. On the other hand,if
someone digs a well in his courtyard for his own benefit, he is
financially liable for any damage that might be caused through it; he
is obliged to keep it in a condition that prevents harming the
passersby. However, if he leaves it without such precautions, he is
deemed a transgressor.
Moreover, if someone owns cattle, he is obliged to keep themaway from
damaging other people's crops especially at night;otherwise he is
financially liable for whatever they damage. The Prophet judged in
such a case: "The owners of property (i.e. cattle) should keep it
during the daytime and they are liable for the damages they (the
cattle) cause during the nighttime." [Imaam Ahmad, Abu Daawood, and
Ibn Maajah]
The owner of a domestic animal is not liable for it during the
daytime, except if he releases it close to what it usually
damages.Imaam Al-Baghaawi said: "Scholars maintain that the owners of
grazing cattle are not liable for the people's properties they (the
cattle) damage during the daytime. However, their owners are liable
for whatever they damage during the night, for it is conventional that
the owners of gardens and orchards are to protect them properly during
the daytime while the cattle owners are to detain them during the
nighttime. Thus, whoever breaks this habit has deviated from the
convention. This is in case the owner of the cattle is absent, but if
he is there,he has to pay for what his cattle have damaged."
In the Quran, Allaah mentions a story about Prophets Daawood (David)
and Sulaymaan (Solomon),may Allaah exalt their mention, and their
judgment concerning a similar case of damage. Allaah, The Exalted,
Says (what means): {And [mention] David and Solomon, when they judged
concerning the field —when the sheep of a people overran it [at
night], and We were witness to their judgment. And We gave
understanding of the case to Solomon, and to each [of them] We gave
judgment and knowledge. And We subjected the mountains to exalt [Us],
along with David and [also] the birds. And We were doing [that].}
[Quran 21: 78 -79]
Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "According to the Quran,
Sulaymaan (Solomon) was clearly favored by understanding the wisdom of
liability on equal terms. The sheep were grazing atnight and damaged a
grape orchard. Daawood judged that the shepherds should pay the exact
value of the damage, and then he estimated the sheep and found that
their value was equal to the compensation for the damage. Therefore,
he gave judgment that all the sheep should be given to the owner of
the orchard. However, Sulaymaanjudged that the owners of the sheep
were liable for the damaged orchard and that they should pay its exact
equivalent in compensation by cultivating the orchard until it returns
to its original state. He did not also deprive the owners of the
orchard of the crops that were supposed to be yielded from the time of
damage until the time of recovery. Thus, Sulaymaan gave the owners of
the orchard the sheep so as to benefit from themas much as the sheep
owners used to benefit from the orchard.In other words, they would
utilize the shepherds' sheep in return for the fruits they missed of
their orchard until the orchard was re-cultivated by the shepherds (in
compensation). So, Sulaymaan evaluated the two guarantees and found
them equal, and that was an example of the knowledge Allaah favored
him with and the wisdom He praised him for."
If an animal has been led or ridden by someone, he is liable only for
whatever it damages with its front organs, such as the forelegs or the
mouth. Yet, he is not liable for what is damaged bythe animal's hind
parts such as the hind legs, for the Prophet said: "There is no
compensation for whatsoever is damaged (or killed or injured) by a
beast's leg." [Al-Bukhaari and Muslim]
Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "The injuries or damages caused
by animals like cows, sheep, and the like are not to be compensated
(by the owner) if they are off a leash. Thisoccurs, for example, when
an animal breaks loose from the person leading it and then
causesdamage. In this case, there is no financial liability on the
owner forthe damage provided that the animal is not used to biting and
that its owner has not been negligent in detaining it at night and
keeping it away from marketplaces and people's gatherings."
The same opinion is maintained by some other scholars, who state that
there is no compensation (for the damage caused) if the animal escapes
andwanders about aimlessly withouta leader or a rider, unless it is a
wild beast.
In addition, if someone is attacked by a human being or an animal, and
killing then is the only way to stop them, there will be no
compensation on that person in case he killed them. This is because
killing here is a means of self-defense which is permissible, so there
is no liability for its consequences. Moreover, the killing of an
assaulter is intended to prevent its harm, so one will not be regarded
as a killer when one kills it in self-defense. Rather, the assaulter
itself will be regarded as a self-murderer in this case. Sheikh
Taqiyyud-Deen said: "A person has to stop the assaulter, and if it
cannot be stopped except by killing, it is permissible for the
attacked person to do so according to the unanimous juristic agreement
in this regard."
Among the objects for which there is no compensation in case of damage
are musical and entertainment instruments, crosses, wine containers,
and books on misguidance, superstition, dissoluteness and profligacy.
This is implied in the
Hadeeth related by Imaam Ahmad on the authority of Ibn 'Umar who
narrated that the Prophet ordered him to get a knife and then he went
to the markets of Madeenah, where there were leather containers of
intoxicants broughtfrom Ash-Sham (The Levant; the region covering
Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine). Ibn ' Umar added that those
leather containers of wine were torn by knives in the presence of the
Prophet who commanded hisCompanions to do the same [Ahmad]. This
Hadeeth proves thecommendableness of destroying such immoral things
without anything in compensation. Still, this should be carried out
under the control and supervision of authorities so as to guarantee
public interests and prevent any evil or corruption resulting. - -
▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
No comments:
Post a Comment