damaged property. Were someone to say that the determining factor in the ruling is the negligence of both parties, that would not be far-fetched. Yet the closer view is that the determining factor is the negligence of the livestock owner. Thus, whenever the livestock owner is negligent in securing his animals and they damage something, he is liable, because he is commanded to keep them under control and restrain their harm. If he fails to do so, he must provide compensation.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that the livestock owner is liable at night, whether or not he was negligent. The sound position of the school, however, is that if he was negligent, he is liable, but if he was not negligent, then he bears no liability. Thus, the author’s statement differs from the school’s position in two respects:

First: restricting liability to damage done to crops rather than other property.

Second: holding the livestock owner liable whether or not he was negligent. The school’s position is general with regard to what is damaged, whether crops or anything else, while making liability conditional upon negligence: if he was not negligent, then he bears no liability.

His statement, “The reverse applies by day,” means that when livestock damage something during the day, liability rests with the owner of the crops, not with the livestock owner, because those charged with safeguarding are the owners of the farms. However, the author, may Allah have mercy on him, made a sound exception which supports the view we mentioned last. He said:

“Except when they are released near something that they would ordinarily damage.” An example is a man grazing his camels during the day who lets them loose near a farm that has neither fencing nor a wall. In such a case, it is customary for livestock to go and eat the crops, as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Like a shepherd grazing around a protected sanctuary