Hence, some narrations put the number at “four,” while others expand the list of harmful creatures to seven; the view adopted by the majority is the sound one.

4 – Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd remarks in his commentary on al-ʿUmda that these animals were singled out to draw attention to everything that shares their respective forms of harm, for the modes of harm are diverse. Thus each example points to the permissibility of killing whatever exhibits the same trait: the scorpion alerts one to all that sting, such as the flea; the mouse to all that bore and gnaw, such as the weasel; the crow and the kite to all that snatch, such as the eagle; and the vicious dog to every beast whose nature is to maul and prey, such as the lion and the leopard.

5 – Restricting the text to “the vicious dog” excludes other dogs and entails that no dog except a vicious one may be killed; al-Nawawī states this explicitly in his commentary on al-Muhadhdhab.

6 – The Shaykh and others have said: A person in ihram—and anyone else—may kill any creature that customarily harms people, such as the snake, the scorpion, or the mouse. He may likewise repel whatever harms him, whether human or animal; indeed, if an assailant cannot be driven off except by killing, he may kill him. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Whoever is killed while defending his property is a martyr, and whoever is killed while defending his honor is a martyr” (Ahmad 21565).

7 – Al-Nawawī writes in his commentary on Muslim: The report supports the view of al-Shāfiʿī and those who agree with him that, within the Sacred Precinct, it is permissible to execute anyone liable to death by retaliation, by stoning for adultery, or by any other prescribed capital penalty, regardless of whether the offence occurred inside the Sanctuary or outside it with the offender later seeking its refuge. This is also the position of Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and others.

8 – The hadith has been cited to prove the prohibition of eating the animals it names, and by extension any creature that is harmful by nature, for the command to kill them is itself evidence of their impermissibility for consumption. Their harmfulness, therefore, is not the legal cause of the ruling; consequently, the attempt to justify killing them solely on the basis of that harm is invalid.