(1) “Allah” is added in manuscripts B and T. (2) Recorded by al-Bukhārī (6/392) and Muslim (no. 1610). (3) The shaykh determined that the correct view is that the usurper is liable for any diminution in the usurped property’s value, whatever form it takes, even if it results from a fall in market price. *Al-Mukhtārāt al-Jaliyya*, p. 92. (4) In manuscripts B and T: “its maintenance expenses.” (5) Shaykh Abd al-Rahmān al-Sa'dī said in *al-Irshād*, p. 148: “There are three kinds of acts that incur liability for harm to persons and property: First: wrongful possession. This includes anyone who unjustly takes possession of another person’s property. Second: direct action. Whoever wrongfully causes the death of a person or destroys property—whether intentionally, inadvertently, or out of ignorance—is liable. Third: indirect causation. Whoever does something that he is not entitled to do on another person’s property or on public roads, or causes damage through an unauthorized act, is liable for anything destroyed as a result. However, when a direct actor and an indirect cause coincide, liability rests with the direct actor. If the direct actor cannot be held liable, the indirect cause is held liable.” End quote, adapted. A useful point: If a person owns or has custody of an animal, any injury or damage it causes to others entails no liability, because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Injury caused by an animal entails no liability.” Exceptions apply if the person has usurped the animal; if the animal is known to cause harm and its owner was negligent; if it caused damage at night; if its owner was exercising control over it; or if he released it near something that animals of its kind would ordinarily damage. In these cases, he has acted wrongfully and is liable. *Nūr al-Basā'ir*, p. 37.