the camel driver, because the owner of the goods did not surrender it to him. The school of Malik and al-Shafi'i is similar to this. The companions of al-Shafi'i said: If the work is in the hired worker's shop and the employer is present, or he hired him to do something for him while he is with him, he is not liable; because his possession (hand) is over it, so he is not liable without his own act of transgression. He is entitled to his wages for his work, because his possession is over it, and whenever he does something, it becomes surrendered to him. The apparent position of al-Khiraqi is that there is no difference between his being on his own property or the property of his employer, or whether the owner of the work is present with him or absent from him, or whether he is with the boatman or the camel driver or otherwise. Likewise, Ibn Aqil said: What is destroyed by the transgression of the boatman through his misjudgment, or by the transgression of the camel driver through his fastening of the goods, or similar acts, is a liability upon him, whether the owner of the goods is with him or not; because the obligation of liability upon him is for the transgression of his hand, so there is no difference between the presence and absence of the owner, just like an act of aggression. Furthermore, the transgression of the camel driver and the boatman, if the owner of the goods is riding with him, extends to both the goods and the owner, and his negligence extends to both of them, so that does not negate the liability, just as if one were to shoot a person who is using a shield, and he breaks his shield and kills him. Furthermore, the physician and the circumciser, if their hands commit an offense, are held liable despite the presence of the patient and the circumcised person. The Qadi mentioned that if there were a camel driver carrying goods on his head and the owner of the goods was with him, and he stumbled, and the goods fell and were destroyed, he is liable; but if they were stolen, he is not liable; because in the case of stumbling, they were destroyed by his transgression, whereas theft is not a transgression of his, and the owner of the property did not intervene between him and them. This necessitates that their destruction by his transgression is a liability upon him, whether the owner of the property is present or absent. Indeed, the obligation of liability in the disputed case is more appropriate, because the action in that instance is intentional on the part of the one doing it, whereas the fall from the porter is not intentional on his part. If the obligation of liability is established here, it is even more so there.

Section: The Qadi mentioned that if the one being hired to carry his goods are young or adult slaves,