and a person trips over it, is injured, or dies, he is liable for compensation, because he has wrongfully tied it in that narrow place.

It may be understood from the author’s words that if he ties it in a wide road, he is not liable. This is sound provided that he has not tied it in the part of the road used by passersby. If he ties it in the path of passersby, then it is as though he tied it in a narrow road, and he is liable for compensation.

If someone were to say: Even if a wide road is used by people—for instance, in its middle—a person can move to the right or left.

We say: Let us ask: is the man who tied the animal in a wide road, in the path used by people, acting wrongfully or not? The answer is that he is acting wrongfully. If he is acting wrongfully, then he is an oppressor. Allah Most High says: “The way of blame is only against those who wrong people” [al-Shura 42:42]. However, if he ties it at one side of a wide road, then there is no liability.

His words, “If he ties it,” apparently indicate that if he merely stops it without tying it, he is not liable, since if he stops it, it will walk away. Yet this apparent meaning is open to question. The correct view is that stopping it is like tying it, because its mere standing in a narrow road—or in a wide road, if he stops it in the path used by people—constitutes wrongful conduct. However, if it is assumed that he stops it in order to load his belongings onto it or unload his belongings from it, and someone trips over it, then he is not liable. This is because he has not acted wrongfully, and this is people’s customary practice. Were we to hold him liable, it would lead to great difficulty: a person would not be able to load his belongings onto his camel unless he brought it into his house, and this would be a tremendous hardship. Thus,