His statement, “or a leader,” means one who leads it from in front, for the leader controls it—especially a tractable animal that follows its owner. It will follow him. But if it becomes startled, bolts away, and he is unable to control it, then it is not under his control.

His statement, “or a driver”: the driver is the least able of the three to control the animal, because he drives it from behind. The rider has control, and the leader has control; as for the driver, he does exercise control, but only to a limited extent. He can make it stop by speaking to it in a manner that indicates it should stop, but as for what lies ahead of it, he cannot control it as he should. Nevertheless, the jurists have placed the driver on the same footing as the rider and the leader.

His statement, “he is liable for the damage it causes with its front, but not with its rear,” means that he is liable for what it bites with its mouth or tramples with its forelegs. As for damage caused by its hind legs, there is no liability—for example, if it steps on something or kicks something with its hind leg—because he cannot control its hind legs. Its forelegs, however, he can turn right or left when it approaches something that it may destroy; the same applies to the driver.

Yet there is also some reservation about this, for when a camel sees food, it swoops down upon it as a bird swoops upon meat and eats that food. So should we say in this case that its owner is liable?

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that he is liable. Yet there is some reservation about this, because in such a case its owner is unable to control it. Therefore, it should be said: if it is under the control of a rider, leader, or driver and destroys something as a result of his negligence or wrongdoing, then he is liable. But if this occurs without wrongdoing or negligence, then we have a principle established by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, which is: