Azami 6894

Malik narrated it in Uqul (42), from Ibn Shihab, from Saeed and Abu Salama bin Abdul-Rahman, from Abu Hurairah, who related it. Bukhari (6912) narrated it from Abdullah bin Yusuf, and Muslim from Qutayba bin Saeed, both of them from Layth, from Ibn Shihab, with a similar chain. This was also narrated from Abu Hurairah by Ibn Sirin, Muhammad bin Ziyad, Araj, Abu Salih, Urwa bin Zubayr, Hammam, and others, and their hadiths are recorded in the Musannaf of Ibn Abu Shayba (9/271-272).Abu Dawud (4593) said, "The dumb animal is one that has broken loose, with no one accompanying it, and this happens by day, not by night." Zuhri said, "Whoever kills an animal must pay compensation, but its owners are not liable for what it kills." It is reported from Ibrahim that a camel attacked a man and killed him. A man then came and killed the camel. Shurayh voided the blood money for the man and made the man liable for the value of the animal. Ibn Abu Shayba mentioned this in his Musannaf.As for what Abu Dawud (4592), Ibn Abu Asim in Diyat (193), Daraqutni (3/152), and Bayhaqi (8/343) narrated, all of them from Sufyan bin Husayn, from Zuhri, from Saeed bin Musayab, from Abu Hurairah, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, "The rider is liable," this is daif.Abu Dawud said, "This refers to an animal that kicks with its leg while someone is riding it." I say, its chain is daif because of Sufyan bin Husayn bin Hasan Abu Muhammad Wasiti, who is trustworthy according to a group of scholars, except regarding Zuhri, where he is weak, because no one corroborates him regarding Zuhri, and a group of trustworthy narrators contradicted him in their narration from Zuhri, none of them mentioning "the rider is liable."Daraqutni said, "This is a mistake, because the trustworthy narrators whose hadiths we have already presented contradicted him and did not mention this. Likewise, Abu Salih Samman, Abdul-Rahman Araj, Muhammad bin Sirin, Muhammad bin Ziyad, and others narrated it from Abu Hurairah without mentioning in it, 'the rider is liable.'"Khattabi said, "People have discussed this hadith, and it has been said that it is not preserved, and Sufyan bin Husayn is known for poor memory." They said, "Rather, the correct wording is, 'The injury caused by a dumb animal is unliable,' and had this hadith been sound, acting upon it would have been obligatory." Abu Hanifa and his companions held this view, maintaining that if a rider's mount kicks a person with its leg, there is no liability, but if it strikes with its hand, the rider is liable. They said this is because the rider controls the animal from the front but has no control over what is behind it. Shafii said, "The hand and the leg are equal, there is no difference between them, and the rider is liable." End of quote.Likewise, what is reported from Abu Hurairah, who said, the Messenger of Allah said, "Fire is unliable," is not sound. Abu Dawud (4594), Ibn Majah (2676), and Ibn Abu Asim in Diyat (192) narrated it, all of them from the hadith of Abdul-Razzaq, and Abu Dawud paired him with Abdul-Malik Sanani, from Mamar, from Hammam bin Munabbih, from Abu Hurairah, who related it.Daraqutni (3/153) said, "Ahmad bin Hanbal says regarding Abdul-Razzaq's hadith, in the hadith of Abu Hurairah, 'and fire is unliable,' this is nothing, it was not in the books, it is baseless and not sahih." Ahmad also said, "The people of Yemen write 'the fire' (an-nar) as 'an-nayr,' and they write 'the well' (al-bir) the same way. So Abdul-Razzaq was simply prompted with 'fire is unliable.'"However, Khattabi said, "I have continually heard the scholars of hadith say that Abdul-Razzaq erred in this, and that the correct wording is, 'The well is unliable,' until I found it in Abu Dawud's narration from Abdul-Malik Sanani, from Mamar, which shows that Abdul-Razzaq was not alone in narrating this hadith. Those who say it is a misreading of 'the well' support this by noting that the people of Yemen pronounce 'fire' (an-nar) with an imala, giving the nun a kasra sound. So someone heard it pronounced this way and wrote it with a ba, and the transmitters then passed it on in this corrupted form."As for the meaning of the hadith, some scholars said, fire can be carried by the wind and burn people's belongings, and in such a case the one who lit it bears no liability. Others distinguished between fire that its owner lights to roast meat over it and fire lit carelessly, saying, whatever damage the latter causes entails liability.As for what is reported from Amir bin Rabia, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, "The dumb animal is unliable," this is an error. Nasai narrated it in Kubra (5830) and Tabarani in Awsat (3940), both of them through the route of Yaqub bin Ibrahim bin Saad, from Layth bin Saad, from Ibn Shihab, from Salim, from his father, from Amir bin Rabia, who related it.Nasai said, "Qutayba bin Saeed contradicted him, narrating it from Layth, from Ibn Shihab, from Abu Salama and Ibn Musayab, from Abu Hurairah, who related it." Tabarani said, "No one narrated this hadith from Layth bin Saad except Yaqub bin Ibrahim." So the correct view is that it belongs to the hadith of Abu Hurairah.As for his saying, "the dumb animal" (al-ajma), this refers to a beast, and it is called ajma because it cannot speak. His saying, "unliable" (jubar) means that it entails no penalty, no blood money, and no retaliation. His saying, "the well is unliable" means that if a person digs a well on his own property or on unclaimed land, and someone falls into it, he bears no liability. Likewise, if he is hired to dig it and it collapses on him and he dies, he bears no liability. His saying, "and the mine is unliable" means that if workers are working inside a mine and a wall collapses on them without anyone's intervention, there is no blood money and no retaliation, rather their deaths are simply unliable. His saying, "and in buried treasure there is a fifth," the term rikaz refers to treasure buried by pre-Islamic people, and a fifth of it goes to the public treasury, while the rest belongs to the one who found it.