grazing, so the shepherd must tend them and keep watch over them. As for letting them graze by themselves, that is not secure custody; rather, they must have a shepherd with them.
The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that maturity and sound reason are not stipulated for the shepherd. However, this requires further consideration, because a young shepherd does not constitute secure custody: anyone can come along, manipulate his mind, and take whatever he wishes; or he may take something while the shepherd, due to his young age, is unable to do anything. Thus, there must be a shepherd who protects them.
He must generally keep them in view. If the shepherd sleeps, this is not secure custody; likewise, if he goes somewhere and leaves the livestock elsewhere, this too is not secure custody, because he is not watching them.
His statement, “generally,” means that the shepherd is not required to watch them continuously, for he may need to perform ablution, pray, or eat. Thus, he does not watch them at all times, but he watches them for the most part, remaining near them and surrounding them. This is regarded as secure custody.
The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that the shepherd is not required to have a dog with him, and this is correct, even though a livestock dog protects and guards them.
For this reason, the Lawgiver has permitted keeping a dog for livestock, because some dogs are more formidable than an armed man. Nevertheless, the author’s words indicate that the shepherd is not required to have a dog with him, and this is correct.
“And that there be no doubt. Thus, the hand is not cut off for theft from one’s father’s property, however high the line of ascent; nor from one’s child’s property, however low the line of descent. The father and mother are alike in this regard. A brother, and every other relative, is subject to the prescribed punishment for stealing the property of his relative. Neither spouse has his or her hand cut off for stealing from the other’s property, even if it was kept securely away from him or her, …”
His statement, “And that there be no doubt”: this is the fifth condition, and it is a condition for all prescribed punishments: the absence of doubt is required. Doubt is anything that could constitute an excuse for the thief in taking the property. We have previously mentioned its evidence, namely the Prophet’s statement, peace and blessings be upon him: “Ward off the prescribed punishments by means of doubts as far as