His statement: “Or if it bites him outside his house”: if a vicious dog bites someone outside the house, its owner is liable in all cases.

His statement: “Like a vicious dog”: is the owner of a dog other than a vicious dog liable? If a man has a gentle dog that is not vicious, and the dog goes out and bites someone—though biting is not its usual habit—is he liable? No, because he says, “a vicious dog,” meaning one whose nature is to bite. This is not a vicious dog, so its owner bears no liability.

However, if it is not vicious but its owner incites it against a person, he is liable, because by doing so he has committed an act of transgression.

The scholars said that dogs are of three types: vicious dogs, black dogs, and all other dogs. A vicious dog must be killed; a black dog may be killed; and other dogs may not be killed, because the Prophet ﷺ forbade the killing of dogs (1)—unless one causes harm, in which case it is to be killed. The governing principle is that every harmful creature is recommended to be killed, whether causing harm is its natural disposition or something that develops in it later.

It says in al-Rawḍ (2): “If the vicious dog damages something by other than biting—for example, by lapping from, or urinating in, someone’s vessel—then there is no liability, because this is not exclusive to vicious dogs.” This is correct: if it damages something in a way other than biting, there is no liability, because that is something customary, and people have always kept dogs, which may urinate