16
Abū Hanīfa, Ibn Hazm, and others, however, held that no liability is incurred in such a case, regarding it as covered by the ruling on non-speaking animals. Some of them held the hadith concerning al-Barā’s she-camel to be weak (1).
If, however, the animal’s owner acted wrongfully by letting it loose in people’s crops or near their crops (2), or by taking it into a donkey’s stable without the donkey owner’s permission, whereupon it killed the donkey, he is liable because of his wrongful act (3).
Thus, in this case of the cow and the donkey, if the cow’s owner was not negligent, then the negligence
(1) Ibn Hazm wrote in *al-Muhallā*, 8/146 (al-Munīriyya ed., 1350): “The owner of an animal bears no liability for any harm it causes to property or person, whether by night or by day. The owner is, however, ordered to keep it under control. If he does so, that suffices; but if the animal causes harm again and he fails to restrain it, it is sold against his will, because the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—said: ‘Injury caused by a non-speaking animal entails no liability.’ This is the position of Abū Hanīfa and Abū Sulaymān. Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī said that its owner is liable for damage it causes at night, but not for damage it causes during the day. This was also the judgment of Shurayh and the ruling of al-Shaʿbī. They cited as evidence the hadith of al-Barāʾ’s she-camel, according to which the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—ruled that orchard owners were responsible for guarding their orchards during the day, while livestock owners were responsible for whatever their animals damaged at night.”
ʿAlī (Ibn Hazm) said: “Had this report been authentic, they would not have preceded us in adopting it. It is, however, inauthentic, for al-Zuhrī alone narrated it from Harām ibn Muhayyisa, from his father. Al-Zuhrī also narrated it from Abū Umāma ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf, stating that a she-camel belonging to al-Barāʾ... It is thus established that the report is *mursal*, because Harām was not Muhayyisa’s direct son; rather, he was the son of Saʿd ibn Muhayyisa, and neither Saʿd nor Abū Umāma heard from al-Barāʾ. A disconnected (*munqatiʿ*) report cannot serve as proof. Indeed, those Hanafis who maintain that a *mursal* report and a fully connected (*musnad*) report carry equal weight would have been obliged to adopt it; but this is one of the matters in which they contradicted themselves.”
Ibn Hazm then discussed the appeal to the story of Solomon—peace be upon him—as evidence, refuted it, and said: “Even had they narrated this from the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—it would not constitute proof, because it is a *mursal* report.”
(2) S, B: *zaraʿa* (“he planted”).
(3) N: *li-ʿadāwatihi* (“because of his hostility”).
وَذَهَبَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَابْنُ حَزْمٍ وَغَيْرُهُمَا إِلَى أَنَّهُ لَا ضَمَانَ فِي ذَلِكَ، وَجَعَلُوهَا دَاخِلَةً فِي الْعَجْمَاءِ. وَضَعَّفَ بَعْضُهُمْ حَدِيثَ نَاقَةِ الْبَرَاءِ
(١)
.
وَأَمَّا إِنْ كَانَ صَاحِبُهَا اعْتَدَى، وَأَرْسَلَهَا فِي زَرْعِ قَوْمٍ، أَوْ بِقُرْبِ زَرْعِهِمْ
(٢)
، أَوْ أَدْخَلَهَا إِلَى إِصْطَبْلِ الْحِمَارِ بِغَيْرِ إِذْنِ صَاحِبِهَا فَأَتْلَفَتْهُ، فَهُنَا يَضْمَنُ لِعُدْوَانِهِ
(٣)
.
فَهَذِهِ قَضِيَّةُ الْبَقَرَةِ وَالْحِمَارِ، إِنْ كَانَ صَاحِبُ الْبَقَرَةِ لَمْ يُفَرِّطْ، فَالتَّفْرِيطُ
(١) قَالَ ابْنُ حَزْمٍ فِي الْمُحَلَّى ٨/١٤٦ (ط. الْمُنِيرِيَّةِ ١٣٥٠) : " وَلَا ضَمَانَ عَلَى صَاحِبِ الْبَهِيمَةِ فِيمَا جَنَتْهُ فِي مَالٍ أَوْ دَمٍ لَيْلًا أَوْ نَهَارًا، لَكِنْ يُؤْمَرُ صَاحِبُهُ بِضَبْطِهِ، فَإِنْ ضَبَطَهُ فَذَاكَ، وَإِنْ عَادَ وَلَمْ يَضْبُطْهُ بِيعَ عَلَيْهِ، لِقَوْلِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: " الْعَجْمَاءُ جَرْحُهَا جُبَارٌ " وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَأَبِي سُلَيْمَانَ. وَقَالَ مَالِكٌ وَالشَّافِعِيُّ: يَضْمَنُ مَا جَنَتْهُ لَيْلًا وَلَا يَضْمَنُ مَا جَنَتْهُ نَهَارًا. وَهُوَ قَضَاءُ شُرَيْحٍ وَحُكْمُ الشَّعْبِيِّ. وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِحَدِيثِ نَاقَةِ الْبَرَاءِ بِأَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - قَضَى أَنَّ عَلَى أَهْلِ الْحَوَائِطِ حِفْظَهَا بِالنَّهَارِ، وَعَلَى أَهْلِ الْمَاشِيَةِ مَا أَصَابَتْ بِاللَّيْلِ. قَالَ عَلِيُّ (بْنُ حَزْمٍ) : لَوْ صَحَّ هَذَا لَمَا سَبَقُونَا إِلَى الْقَوْلِ بِهِ، وَلَكِنَّهُ خَبَرٌ لَا يَصِحُّ، لِأَنَّهُ إِنَّمَا رَوَاهُ الزُّهْرِيُّ عَنْ حَرَامِ بْنِ مُحَيِّصَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ وَرَوَاهُ الزُّهْرِيُّ أَيْضًا عَنْ أَبِي أُمَامَةَ بْنِ سَهْلِ بْنِ حَنِيفٍ أَنَّ نَاقَةً لِلْبَرَاءِ. . فَصَحَّ أَنَّهُ مُرْسَلٌ، لِأَنَّ حَرَامًا لَيْسَ هُوَ ابْنَ مُحَيِّصَةَ لِصُلْبِهِ، إِنَّمَا هُوَ ابْنُ سَعْدِ بْنِ مُحَيِّصَةَ، وَسَعْدٌ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ مِنَ الْبَرَاءِ، وَلَا أَبُو أُمَامَةَ، وَلَا حُجَّةَ فِي مُنْقَطِعٍ، وَلَقَدْ كَانَ يَلْزَمُ الْحَنِيفِيِّينَ الْقَائِلِينَ: إِنَّ الْمُرْسَلَ وَالْمُسْنَدَ سَوَاءٌ أَنْ يَقُولُوا بِهِ، وَلَكِنَّ هَذَا مِمَّا تَنَاقَضُوا فِيهِ ". ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ ابْنُ حَزْمٍ الِاحْتِجَاجَ بِقِصَّةِ سُلَيْمَانَ - عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ -، وَرَدَّ ذَلِكَ، وَقَالَ: " وَلَوْ رَوَوْا ذَلِكَ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - مَا قَامَتْ بِهِ حُجَّةٌ لِأَنَّهُ مُرْسَلٌ ".
(٢) س، ب: زَرَعَ.
(٣) ن: لِعَدَاوَتِهِ.