Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "If it cannot be repelled except by killing, then he has the right to do so, and there is no liability upon him, and if he is killed, he is a martyr"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his Companions. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "And if one attacks his person, his honor, or his property, whether a human or a beast, he has the right to repel it". Good, a fine point. "He has the right to repel it". It is mentioned that if the attacker is killed in a manner that cannot be repelled except by killing, there is no liability for it, is that right? And if it is a beast? Is there liability?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is even more so.
The Shaykh : A beast attacked him, a camel attacked this man intending to kill him, or a wolf attacked him intending to eat his sheep, and the wolf could not be repelled except by killing, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Does he have to compensate the owner for the camel, and does he have to compensate the owner for the wolf? Hmm?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Good, does he have to compensate the owner for the camel?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : There is no liability, right? Or is there? Because the attacker has no sanctity, for he is a source of harm. If the source of harm is naturally harmful, it is killed even if it does not attack, such as a mouse, a snake, a scorpion, and the like. And if it is not naturally harmful, it is killed when it is causing harm, like this attacker. Yes, good. We said there is no liability for it, but if the owner of the camel claims that the camel did not attack and says, "Compensate me for my camel," and the one who killed it says, "It attacked you," what is the ruling?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : As for the school of thought, he is obligated to pay compensation, because the original ruling is the sanctity of a Muslim's property. The original ruling is that this camel is respected, unless evidence is established that it attacked you and could not be repelled except by killing. The correct view is what the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah chose, which is that the matter is referred to the circumstances. If it is known that this killer, who claimed that it attacked him, is a righteous man who cannot encroach upon the rights of others except on the basis of a legal justification, then his word is accepted, but he must take an oath, because the oath is required from the stronger of the two claimants. Good. And as for if he is not known for righteousness, then the original ruling is the compensation for another's property and its respect.
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is even more so.
The Shaykh : A beast attacked him, a camel attacked this man intending to kill him, or a wolf attacked him intending to eat his sheep, and the wolf could not be repelled except by killing, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Does he have to compensate the owner for the camel, and does he have to compensate the owner for the wolf? Hmm?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Good, does he have to compensate the owner for the camel?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : There is no liability, right? Or is there? Because the attacker has no sanctity, for he is a source of harm. If the source of harm is naturally harmful, it is killed even if it does not attack, such as a mouse, a snake, a scorpion, and the like. And if it is not naturally harmful, it is killed when it is causing harm, like this attacker. Yes, good. We said there is no liability for it, but if the owner of the camel claims that the camel did not attack and says, "Compensate me for my camel," and the one who killed it says, "It attacked you," what is the ruling?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : As for the school of thought, he is obligated to pay compensation, because the original ruling is the sanctity of a Muslim's property. The original ruling is that this camel is respected, unless evidence is established that it attacked you and could not be repelled except by killing. The correct view is what the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah chose, which is that the matter is referred to the circumstances. If it is known that this killer, who claimed that it attacked him, is a righteous man who cannot encroach upon the rights of others except on the basis of a legal justification, then his word is accepted, but he must take an oath, because the oath is required from the stronger of the two claimants. Good. And as for if he is not known for righteousness, then the original ruling is the compensation for another's property and its respect.