and is soon to fall into it.” (1)

This exception mentioned by the author is sound and well-founded. For example, a person may release his animals five or ten metres away, or within sight of, the place that they would ordinarily damage, and then leave. It is well known that they will go to the crops and eat them; in that case, liability rests with their owner. This is why he said: “Except when they are released near something that they would ordinarily damage.”

This too differs from the school’s position. According to the school, the livestock owner bears no liability for damage caused during the day, whether he releases them near something they would ordinarily damage or not. This is based on the view that the basis of the ruling is whether the owner of the crops was negligent, since he is the one commanded to safeguard his crops during the daytime. Yet the sounder view is that of the school, because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ruled that the owners of enclosed gardens are responsible for guarding them during the day. (2) The exception is where the livestock owner takes advantage of the farmers’ absence and releases his animals; in that case, he is liable. Likewise, if he releases the animals near something that they would ordinarily damage, as mentioned above, he is liable.

If someone were to ask: If the situation were reversed, so that people safeguarded their property at night and livestock were likewise set loose at night, would the ruling also be reversed?

Some scholars said that it would be reversed, because a ruling revolves with its effective cause, being present when it is present and absent when it is absent. Other scholars said that it would not be reversed, because this is an unusual situation.