Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/206)

The first: those whose killing has been commanded—namely, all harmful creatures.

The second: those whose killing has been forbidden. They are four: the bee, the ant, the hoopoe, and the shrike (1).

The third: those concerning which nothing has been stated. The basic rule is that they are not to be killed. But is killing them permissible, since the Lawgiver’s prohibition of killing a specific creature indicates the permissibility of killing others? Or is it not permissible, since the Lawgiver’s command to kill a particular creature indicates that others are not to be killed? The apparent view is the first: the basic rule is permissibility. Unless, however, a person fears that, by killing such creatures, he may become fond of aggression; in that case, he must restrain himself.

It says in al-Rawḍ: “If he digs a well in the open area adjoining his house for his own use, he is liable for whatever is damaged by it” (2). The open area is that which lies in front of the house, whether connected to it or separate from it, where rubbish and household waste are thrown. This area is not owned by the individual; therefore, if he digs a well there for his own use, he is liable for whatever is damaged by it.

He said: “But if he digs it for the Muslims’ benefit, without causing harm, in a public thoroughfare, he is not liable for whatever is damaged by it, because he is acting beneficently.” That is, if he digs it for the benefit of the Muslims, and it is not in the middle of their thoroughfare—that is, their road—such as when he digs it at the side of a wide road, then he is not liable for whatever is damaged by it.

(1) Reported by Imam Ahmad, 6:332, 347; Abu Dawud, Book of Etiquette, chapter: “On Killing Ants,” no. 5267; and Ibn Majah, Book of Hunting, chapter: “What Is Prohibited to Kill,” no. 3224, on the authority of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him). Authenticated by Ibn Hibban, no. 5646, and in al-Irwa, no. 2490. (2) Al-Rawd al-Murbi' with Ibn Qasim's marginal commentary, 5:416–17.

الأول: ما أمر بقتله وهي كل المؤذيات. الثاني: ما نهي عن قتله، وهي أربعة: النحلة، والنملة، والهدهد، والصُّرَد (١). الثالث: ما سكت عنه، فهذه الأصل أن لا تقتل، ولكن هل يباح؛ لأن نهي الشارع عن قتل شيء بعينه يدل على جواز غيره، أو لا يباح؛ لأن أمر الشارع بقتل شيء يدل على أن غيره لا يقتل؟ الظاهر الأول وأن الأصل الإباحة، اللهم إلا أن يخشى الإنسان على نفسه أن يكون بقتله لهذه الأشياء محباً للعدوان فحينئذٍ يجب أن يمنع نفسه. قال في الروض: «وإن حفر في فنائه بئراً لنفسه ضمن ما تلف بها» (٢) الفناء ما يكون أمام البيت متصلاً به أو منفصلاً عنه لإلقاء الكناسة فيه ونفايات البيت، هذا الفناء ليس ملكاً للإنسان، فإذا حفر فيه بئراً لنفسه ضمن ما تلف بها. قال: «وإن حفرها للمسلمين بلا ضرر في سابلة لم يضمن ما تلف بها؛ لأنه محسن» أي: إن حفرها لنفع المسلمين ولم يكن ذلك في سابلتهم ـ أي طريقهم ـ بأن حفرها في جانب طريق واسع فإنه لا يضمن ما تلف بها.

(١) أخرجه الإمام أحمد (٦/ ٣٣٢، ٣٤٧)؛ وأبو داود في الأدب/ باب في قتل الذر (٥٢٦٧)؛ وابن ماجه في الصيد/ باب ما ينهى عن قتله (٣٢٢٤) عن ابن عباس ﵄؛ وصححه ابن حبان (٥٦٤٦)؛ وصححه في الإرواء (٢٤٩٠). (٢) حاشية الروض مع حاشية ابن قاسم (٥/ ٤١٦، ٤١٧).