Difference Hadiths About Animal Crimes

Abstract

Abstract:

Abstract: The research studies the conflicting hadiths on the issue of animal crimes, in accordance with, studying their chains of transmission, explaining the reasoning behind them, explaining the two opposing sides of reasoning regarding them, the strength and weakness of the reasoning, and mention what is likely to be the chosen opinion regarding them. Among the objectives of the research: collecting the methods of the hadith (a dumb animal is growling{no retaliation or fine}). The hadiths that oppose it, and their narrative and acknowledge study, and the contradiction between them is avoided by explaining the paths of the scholars about them, and studying the most important issues of jurisprudence that have been deduced. The research method is inductive and analytical, the  most important results among it are: the hadith (a dumb animal is growling) narrated in the two Sahihs, and narrations were reported for it in others that some jurists used as evidence. Most of them are like: (a man growling{no retaliation or fine}), (fire is growling{no retaliation or fine}), and (a pasturing animal growling{no retaliation or fine}), and they are not correct. The best way to reject the contradiction is the way of pluralization, which is the opinion of the majority, so they interpreted the generality of which (an animal is growling) on the hadith (the she-camel of Al-Baraa). They made the guarantee borne by who gather animals at night, and if the animal destroyed anything other than crops, its owner would not be liable for what it destroyed, whether by night or day, unless he had controlled it. If an animal attacked a human being, he was unable to repel it except by killing, then killed it, so he does not guarantee - and this is the opinion of the majority -. One of the most important recommendations is: studying the effects contained in the judgments of the Companions and those after them in matters of guarantee.