“The injury caused by an animal is not subject to compensation.” (1)

Accordingly, the criterion governing this matter—that is, injuries caused by animals—should be wrongdoing or negligence. If the owner has acted wrongfully or negligently, he is liable; otherwise, he is not.

Wrongdoing includes, for example, taking it past a tree or alongside food when he knows that it will snatch fruit from the tree or eat that food.

Negligence includes being able to rein in its bridle but failing to do so.

“The rest of the damage it causes is not subject to compensation, just as there is no compensation for killing an assailant, breaking a flute or a cross, or destroying vessels of gold, silver, or wine that are not legally protected.”

His statement, “The rest of the damage it causes is not subject to compensation,” means that the remainder of an animal’s damage is not subject to compensation. The evidence is the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “The injury caused by an animal is not subject to compensation.” The reason is that liability cannot be assigned to the animal, since it is an animal, nor to its owner, since he has committed no wrongdoing or negligence. Thus, all the damage it causes is not subject to compensation except what has been excluded. As has been explained, what is excluded is based on wrongdoing or negligence. If there is neither wrongdoing nor negligence, its owner bears no liability.

This is a principle that gives the heart reassurance and on which one may confidently rely. It is a thoroughly well-defined principle, derived from the sunnah.

Issue: Nowadays, we do not have animals in relation to a rider, leader, or driver; rather, we have cars. The ruling concerning cars is based on this principle: if there is wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the driver, he is liable; but if there is neither wrongdoing nor negligence, then he bears no liability.