We shall now set out the well-known points on which the jurists are agreed with respect to these two categories, and the issues over which they disagree:

It is established in the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar and others that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—said:

“Five kinds of beasts may be killed by the person in ihrām without sin: the crow, the kite, the scorpion, the mouse, and the vicious dog.”

The scholars unanimously accept this ḥadīth, and the majority hold that killing the creatures it names is permissible, since they are not classified as game—though some have attached certain qualifying conditions.

They then differed as to whether this text is a specific ruling meant to remain specific, or a specific ruling intended to convey a general principle. Those who adopted the latter view disagreed over the scope of that generality.

Mālik said: the “vicious dog” cited in the ḥadīth points to every predatory animal that attacks; any beast of prey that is not aggressive may not be killed by the pilgrim in ihrām. Accordingly, he did not allow the killing of their young that do not attack, nor of any among them that are themselves non-aggressive.

There is no disagreement regarding the permissibility of killing the serpent, the viper, and the black snake, for this is reported from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—in a ḥadīth narrated by Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī: “The viper and the black snake are to be killed.”

Mālik also said: I do not hold that the gecko should be killed. Reports calling for its killing are mass-transmitted, but they are unrestricted and do not pertain to the Sacred Precinct; for that reason Mālik withheld judgment about killing it within the Ḥaram.

Abū Ḥanīfah said: of the vicious dogs, only the domestic dog and the wolf may be killed.

A minority view maintained that nothing may be killed except the pied crow.

Al-Shāfiʿī stated: every animal whose flesh is forbidden to eat is meant by the “five.” His argument is that what is unlawful for the person in ihrām is only what is lawful for one who is not in ihrām; moreover, by unanimous agreement, no creature whose meat is lawful may be killed, for the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—forbade hunting land animals. Abū Ḥanīfah, however, did not restrict the term “domestic dog” to its literal instance alone, but understood it to include every wild canine.

They also disagreed about the hornet: some likened it to the scorpion, while others judged it less harmful.

In sum, the creatures explicitly named in the texts encompass various forms of harm. Whoever regarded the wording as specific yet intended to be general attached to each of them whatever resembled it, whenever such resemblance existed; whereas those who rejected that view limited the ruling to what the text itself names.

A fringe group asserted that only the pied crow may be killed, thereby restricting the general designation that appears