We say: he said this in reference to the view of some scholars that if it is destroyed from among his property, it is unconditionally subject to liability, because its destruction while his own property remains intact indicates some form of negligence. Otherwise, what caused it to be destroyed while his own property was not?!

But the correct view is what the author stated: the custodian bears no liability except in the case of transgression or negligence.

He then explained what the custodian is required to do:

“It is incumbent upon him”—that is, upon the custodian—

His statement, “to keep it in a place customarily secure for such property”: a secure place is one that preserves and protects an item. It varies according to several considerations: according to the type of property, the country, and the strength or weakness, justice or oppression, of the ruling authority. It also varies according to the type of property: the secure place for gold and silver is not the same as that for household utensils. Utensils may be kept in the open areas of a house, in chambers and rooms, without strong locks; whereas gold and silver are kept in chests secured with strong locks. Livestock, such as camels, are kept in a sturdy, well-fortified enclosure, while sheep are kept in an enclosure of a lesser kind.

Likewise, it differs from one country to another. A country in which security forces are widespread is unlike a country with open doors and no security personnel; the latter calls more urgently for precaution. The same applies to the ruling authority: if it is strong, less vigilance is needed, but if it is weak, greater vigilance is required. The same is true with respect to justice and oppression.

If someone deposits a sheep with him, should he put it in a securely locked chest?! No. Indeed, if we suppose that he did so, he would be liable, because he has transgressed: that is not a suitable place for it.

His statement, “If its owner specifies it,” means: specifies the secure place.