Wounding an animal that cannot be taken (aqr) and its effect on lawfulness and liability

العَقْر

In the lexicon, aqr is wounding; a horse or camel is hamstrung with a sword by cutting its legs. The jurists use it in two senses: a wound in any part of the body of a wild animal that cannot be caught, and the cutting of an animal's legs ¹. Wounding has an effect on whether the flesh of an animal may be eaten: a hunted animal that is caught by a wound is lawful when the conditions of the hunt are met, and an animal of domestic kind that runs wild and cannot be caught is lawful by wounding, according to the majority; the Malikis disagree on the wild animals of domestic kind ² ³. The Hanafis apply the same rule to an animal that attacks a man and cannot be restrained. On the spoils of war that cannot be carried away, the Shafi'is and Hanbalis forbid their wounding except to eat them, while some allow it in case of need ³ ⁴. On the liability for a vicious dog that wounds a person or tears clothes, the Shafi'is and a view of Abu Yusuf hold the owner liable; Abu Hanifa does not, and Muhammad distinguishes whether the owner drove or urged it on; the Malikis divide liability for killing by intent and by the owner's knowledge ⁵ ⁶.

Summary

In the lexicon, aqr is wounding. The jurists use it of a wound in any part of the body of a wild animal that cannot be caught, and of cutting the legs of an animal ¹.

Its effect on lawfulness of the flesh

A hunted animal wounded in any part of its body is lawful to eat when the conditions of the hunt are met; an animal of domestic kind that runs off and cannot be caught is lawful by wounding, according to the majority ² ³.

Wounding spoils of war

When the Muslims cannot carry away the animals of the enemy, the Shafi'is and Hanbalis forbid wounding them except to eat them; some jurists allow it in case of need ⁴.

Liability for a vicious dog

Whoever sets loose a vicious dog that wounds a person is liable according to the Shafi'is and Abu Yusuf; Abu Hanifa does not hold him liable, and the rule varies with whether the owner entered the place, drove the dog and how he kept it ⁵ ⁶.

Where to look further

Slaughter is treated under «zakat al-dhabh», hunting under «sayd», and aggression by an animal under «sayal» ².

Sources

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11764

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11765

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11766

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11767

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11768

al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaitiyya, Noor-Book copy (file named v3) , p.11769

Openness as against secrecy in acts of worship, charity and public notice (alaniya)

In the lexicon, alaniya comes from proclaiming and showing a thing, and is the opposite of secrecy. Public voice (jahr) is narrower than openness, and secrecy is what is hidden in the heart. Acts of worship divide by openness: some are prescribed to be public, such as the call to prayer, the sermon, jihad and enjoining good; some are better kept private, such as reciting silently in the silent prayer; and some may be either, such as charity. An obligatory alms-giving is better shown when there is no fear of showing off, so that others may follow it, while a voluntary gift is better hidden where display is feared. The faults of narrators, witnesses and those entrusted with charities and endowments must be made public when they affect their fitness, and the scholars hold this is not forbidden backbiting. The judge is recommended to proclaim the restraint of a bankrupt and to call witnesses to it, and one Shafi'i view makes it obligatory.