in people’s places, yet no Muslim has ever held their owners liable. Rather, liability applies only where the animal is acting aggressively.

It says in al-Rawḍ: “The ruling concerning a lion, a tiger, a wolf, and a cat that habitually eats birds and overturns cooking pots is the same as that of a vicious dog” (1). If a person keeps a lion and it attacks someone outside the home, he is liable, because keeping it is an act of transgression; the same applies to a wolf.

Likewise, if someone has a cat that goes to the neighbours’ homes, eats meat, and overturns their pots, he is liable, because he is required to restrain it. This applies if such conduct is its habit, in which case it is like a vicious dog. But if it is not its habit to attack or cause damage, its owner bears no liability, because it is not under his direct control.

He said: “He may kill a cat for eating meat and the like, just as with harmful vermin.” That is, a person may kill a cat for eating meat. But is this conditional upon its being done while it is eating the meat, or may it be killed even after it has left off eating?

Some of the companions of the school said that he may do so while it is eating; accordingly, killing it falls under the heading of repelling an aggressor. But once it has finished eating, he may not kill it. The relied-upon position in the school, however, is that he may kill it even after it has finished eating, because it has acted aggressively.

If it is not eating meat, the apparent meaning of his statement, “He may kill …,” is that if the cat has committed no aggression, it may not be killed. This is because animals are divided into three categories: