in his sleeve, and he held it in his hand during a struggle, he is not liable. If he did that in the absence of a struggle, he is liable. If he ordered him to preserve it unconditionally, and he left it in his pocket, or fastened it in his sleeve, he is not liable for it. If he left it in his sleeve unfastened, and it was light so that he would not notice it if it fell, he is liable for it because he is negligent. If it was heavy so that he would notice it, he is not liable for it, [because this is] the custom of people in safeguarding their wealth. If he fastened it to his upper arm, he is not liable for it, because that is more protective for it. The Qadi said: If he fastened it on the side of the pocket, he is not liable, but if he fastened it on the other side, he is liable for it, because the pickpocket is able to slit it, unlike if he fastened it on the side adjacent to the pocket. This is invalidated by the case where he leaves it in his pocket or fastens it in his sleeve, for the pickpocket is able to slit it, yet he is not liable; and the possibility of securing it in a more protective place does not prevent it from being secured in a lesser place, provided it is a secure place (hirz) for its like. Fastening it to the upper arm is a secure place for it regardless of how it is done, because people secure their wealth with it, so it is similar to fastening it in the sleeve and leaving it in the pocket. However, if he ordered him to fasten it on the side adjacent to the pocket, and he fastened it on the other side, he is liable. If he ordered him to fasten it on the side adjacent to the other side, and he fastened it on the side adjacent to the pocket, he is not liable, because it is more secure. If he ordered him to fasten it to his upper arm unconditionally, or ordered him to preserve it with him, and he fastened it on whichever of the two sides it was, he is not liable, because he is complying with the order of its owner and is securing it in a secure place appropriate for its like. If he fastened it around his waist, it is more secure for it, and likewise if he left it in his house in its secure place.

Section: If he ordered him to place it in a box, and said: "Do not lock it, and do not sleep on top of it," and he opposed him in that; or said: "Do not lock it except with one lock," and he placed two locks on it, he is not liable. The Qadi mentioned this, and it is the apparent [position] of the Shafi'i school. It is narrated from Malik that he is liable, because he opposed its owner in something for which he has an interest related to its preservation, so it is similar to if he had forbidden him from