Is there liability for killing a charging camel (jamal sa'il) in self-defense?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Beverages (Intoxicants)
Primary text
If a rampaging camel attacks a person, and the only way to repel it is by killing it, it is permissible to kill it by consensus (ijma'). The killer bears no liability for the animal if it belongs to another. This view is held by Malik, Shafi'i, and Ishaq. The reasoning is that the killing was an act of permissible defense, analogous to the permissibility of killing a slave in defense, and since the camel is a living creature whose destruction is permitted in defense, no guarantee is due, similar to the case of a responsible adult whom one kills in self-defense. Furthermore, the attacking animal is considered the agent causing its own death, similar to someone throwing themselves onto a spear.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa and his companions hold that liability exists because the person destroyed another's property to save their own life, making it equivalent to a person consuming another's property out of necessity. They apply this logic even to non-accountable humans like children and the insane; their killing is permissible, but liability is due because they lack the authority to permit their own death. This differs from necessity concerning food, as the necessity did not compel the destruction of property, and the victim did not forfeit their immunity.