Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/203)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement: “If he ties an animal in a narrow road and a person trips over it, he is liable,” means that the one who ties the animal is liable; the same applies to one who merely stops it there. If the person does not trip over it but the animal kicks him, its owner is liable, because he is forbidden to stop the animal in such a place. But if he stops it in this narrow place and someone comes and provokes it, causing it to kick him, the one who tied it is not liable, because the injury in this case resulted from the man’s own act. He is the direct cause, so the one who tied the animal bears no liability. If someone provokes it and it strikes another person with its leg, liability rests upon the one who provoked it. This is governed by the principle of the direct cause and the indirect cause.

His statement: “Like a vicious dog, regarding one who enters his house with his permission, or whom it bites outside his house,” means that the owner of a vicious dog is liable if the dog bites someone who entered his house with his permission, or if it bites someone outside the house. This is because a vicious dog—one known to attack people—may not be kept under any circumstances; rather, it must be killed. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Five creatures may be killed in both the sanctuary and outside it: the crow, the kite, the scorpion, the mouse, and the vicious dog.” (1) Keeping it is therefore unlawful, and accordingly the owner is liable for every injury caused by its bite—except in the case of one who enters its owner’s house without permission. There is no liability in that case, because the entrant is a trespasser by entering the house without its owner’s permission. Allah says: “O you who believe, do not enter houses other than your own until you have sought permission.” [al-Nur: 27]

But if he grants him permission and the man enters while the owner of the house is inside his home, and the dog bites him, then the owner is liable, because he entered with the householder’s permission.

It was also said that if he informs him that the dog is vicious, then he bears no liability.

(1) Its source has previously been cited (p. 110).

وقوله: «وإن ربط دابة بطريق ضيق فعثر به إنسان ضمن» أي: رابط الدابة، وكذلك مُوقِفُها، فلو لم يعثر بها ولكنها رفسته فعليه الضمان؛ لأن هذا المكان يحرم عليه أن يوقف الدابة فيه، فإن أوقفها في هذا المكان الضيق وجاء إنسان فنخسها فرفسته فلا ضمان على الرابط؛ لأن التلف الآن حصل بفعل الرجل، فهو المباشر فلا ضمان على رابطها، وإن نخسها فضربت برجلها آخر فالضمان على من نخسها، وهذا يُنَزَّل على القاعدة: مباشر ومتسبب. قوله: «كالكلب العقور لمن دخل بيته بإذنه أو عقره خارج منزله» يعني كما يضمن صاحب الكلب العقور إذا عقر الكلب من دخل بيته بإذنه، أو عقر من كان خارج المنزل؛ وذلك أن الكلب العقور ـ وهو الذي عُرف منه العدوان على الناس ـ لا يجوز اقتناؤه بأي حال من الأحوال ويجب قتله؛ لأن النبي ﷺ قال: «خمس يقتلن في الحل والحرم: الغراب، والحدأة، والعقرب، والفأرة، والكلب العقور» (١) فاقتناؤه حرام، وعلى هذا كل ما تلف بعقره فهو مضمون على صاحبه، إلا من دخل بيت صاحبه بغير إذنه فلا ضمان فيه؛ لأن الداخل معتدٍ حيث دخل البيت بغير إذن صاحبه، والله ﷿ يقول: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتًا غَيْرَ بُيُوتِكُمْ حَتَّى تَسْتَأْنِسُوا﴾ [النور: ٢٧] فإن أذن له ودخل الرجل وصاحب المنزل في داخل منزله فعقره الكلب؟ فعليه الضمان؛ لأنه دخل بإذن رب البيت. وقيل: إنه إن أعلمه أنه عقور فإنه لا ضمان عليه.

(١) سبق تخريجه (ص ١١٠).