Rulings on destruction of property
Question

                What is the ruling in a case where a person destroys the property of another? Does the ruling differ according to whether that is done deliberately or otherwise?
Praise be to Allah. Allaah 
          has forbidden aggression against people’s property and taking it unlawfully. 
          He has prescribed that whatever is destroyed unlawfully is to be replaced, 
          even if it is destroyed by mistake. Whoever destroys the property of 
          another person which was sacred (i.e., protected by sharee’ah), and 
          destroys it without the owner’s permission, is obliged to replace it. 
 Imaam 
          al-Muwaffaq said: “We do not know of any dispute concerning this matter. 
          It is the same regardless of whether that was done deliberately or by 
          mistake, and whether (the person who destroyed it) was told by someone 
          else to do it or not. The same applies if he causes it to be destroyed, 
          such as if he opens a door and causes something which was locked up 
          to be lost, or he tilts a vessel and allows what is inside it to flow 
          out and be lost – he is obliged to replace it. The same applies if he 
          loosens the reins of an animal or ties it up, and it gets lost or dies 
          – he has to replace it. The same applies if he ties up an animal in 
          a narrow street, resulting in a person stumbling over it and dying or 
          being injured as a result – he is responsible for that because he transgressed 
          the limits by tying it up in a narrow street. The same applies if he 
          stops his car in the street resulting in another car or a person hitting 
          it, causing harm – he is responsible because of the report narrated 
          by al-Daaraqutni and others, which says that whoever makes an animal 
          stop in the way of the Muslims or in one of their marketplaces, and 
          it steps with its front or back leg on something  – he is responsible. 
          The same applies if he leaves a pile of mud or some wood or rocks in 
          the street, or he digs a hole and that results in a passer-by being 
          killed or injured, or he throws a melon rind or similar thing into the 
          street, or spills water and someone else slips on it and is killed or 
          injured, the one who did that in all cases is responsible, because by 
          doing that he was transgressing.  How lightly these matters are 
          taken nowadays. How often holes are dug in the streets and the way is 
          blocked, and they put obstacles in the roads, and how much harm and 
          damage results from these actions, without anyone watching over such 
          matters and putting them right, to the extent that a person may take 
          over the entire road and use it for his own purposes, annoying and causing 
          harm to passers-by, and not caring at all that he may be sinning by 
          doing that. Another of the cases in which a person is held to be responsible 
          is if he keeps a vicious dog and it attacks a passer-by or kills someone 
          – he is held to be responsible because by keeping this dog he was transgressing.  
          If he digs a well in his courtyard for his own purposes he is held to 
          be responsible for any harm that this may cause, because he is obliged 
          to maintain it in a manner that does not harm passers-by. If he leaves 
          it without taking proper care of it, then he is transgressing. If he 
          has livestock he has to take proper care of them at night to prevent 
          them from damaging people’s crops; if he leaves them and they do damage 
          someone’s crops, he is held to be responsible for that, because the 
          Prophet  
          
          (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon them) decreed that people who 
          have property must take care of it during the day, and whatever is damaged 
          at night, they must be compensated for that.” (Narrated by Ahmad, Abu 
          Dawood and Ibn Maajah). So the owner of an animal is not held to be 
          responsible any damage that was done during the day, unless he sent 
          the animal near a place where it could do damage. Imaam al-Baghawi (may 
          Allaah have mercy on him) said: “The scholars said that whatever is 
          destroyed at night, the owner (of the animal) is held to be responsible 
          for that, because customarily the owners of gardens and orchards guard 
          them during the day, and the owners of livestock guard them at night, 
          so whoever goes against that practice has gone against what is customary. 
          This applies if the owner of the animals is not with them; if he is 
          with them then he is held to be responsible for whatever damage they 
          did.” 
 Allaah 
          mentioned the story of Dawood and Sulaymaan concerning this matter, 
          as He said (interpretation of the meaning): 
 
          “And (remember) Dawood (David) and Sulaymaan (Solomon), 
          when they gave judgement in the case of the field in which the sheep 
          of certain people had pastured at night; and We were witness to their 
          judgement.
 
          And We made Sulaymaan (Solomon) to understand (the case); 
          and to each of them We gave Hukm (right judgement of the affairs and 
          Prophethood) and knowledge…”
 
          [al-Anbiya’ 21:78]
 Shaykh 
          al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “The text 
          of the Qur’aan praised Sulaymaan for his understanding that compensation 
          meant replacing it with something similar. Pasturing the sheep at night 
          means taking them out to graze at night, which took place in a vineyard. 
          Dawood ruled that the value of what had been destroyed should be paid 
          in compensation. He thought that the sheep were equal in value to the 
          destroyed crops, and he wanted to give them to the owner of the cultivated 
          field. But Sulaymaan ruled that the owners of the sheep were obliged 
          to pay compensation, and that they should repay in kind, by tending 
          the field until it was restored to its former state. He also took into 
          account the benefits that would be lost whilst the field was being restored, 
          so he ruled that the owners of the garden were to be given the livestock 
          and that they could take what the produced until it was equivalent to 
          the produce of the garden. They could benefit from the produce of the 
          sheep in place of the produce of the garden which they had lost. He 
          found that what the sheep produced during this period would be equivalent 
          to what the garden would have produced. This is the knowledge which 
          Allaah gave exclusively to Sulaymaan and for which He praised him.” 
 If 
          the animal is under the control of a rider or of a person who is leading 
          it or driving it, then he is responsible for any damage that it may 
          cause with its front legs or mouth, but not for any damage that it may 
          cause with its back legs, because of the hadeeth, “There is no compensation 
          for the back legs.” According to the report of Abu Hurayrah, (the hadeeth 
          is), “There is no compensation for the back legs of a dumb animal.” 
          The animal is described as dumb because it does not speak. Compensation 
          here refers to compensation for damage done by the animal. 
 Shaykh 
          al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “In the case 
          of every dumb animal – such as cattle, and sheep – there is no compensation 
          for damage done by the animal if it did it by itself (i.e., was not 
          under the control of anyone), such as if it ran away from the person 
          under whose control it was and it did some damage. No one is obliged 
          to pay any compensation, so long as it was not vicious and its owner 
          was not being negligent about restraining it at night or keeping it 
          away from the markets and gathering-places of the Muslims. More than 
          one of (of the scholars) mentioned that there is no compensation to 
          be paid if the animal had escaped and was going by itself without anyone 
          leading it or driving it, except in the case of savage animals.” 
 If 
          it attacks a human being or another animal, and the only way of warding 
          it off is by killing it, and it is killed, then there is no obligation 
          to pay compensation, because it was killed in self-defence, and defending 
          oneself is permissible. So he does not have to pay compensation for 
          the consequences and because he killed it in order to ward off its evil; 
          if he killed it in order to ward off its evil, then the attacker is 
          the one who has killed himself. 
 Shaykh 
          Taqiy al-Deen said: “He has to defend himself from the one who is attacking 
          him, and if he can only do that by killing him (the attacker), then 
          he has the right to do that, according to the consensus of the Fuqahaa’”. 
 Among 
          the items for which there is no obligation to pay compensation if they 
          are destroyed are: musical instruments; crosses; vessels for wine; books 
          of misguidance, myths and promiscuous material, because Ahmad narrated 
          from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet 
          
          (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told him to take a dagger 
          then they both went out to the market of Madeenah in which there were 
          wineskins that had been brought from Syria. (Ibn ‘Umar) tore them open 
          in the presence of the Prophet 
          
          (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) spilled their contents, 
          and he commanded his companions to do likewise.” This hadeeth indicates 
          that it is required to destroy them and that no compensation for that 
          is due. But their destruction must be done on the authority of the ruler 
          and under his supervision, so as to protect people’s interests and avoid 
          mischief.