and acts as an agent taking for himself from himself. He leaves this to his own discretion regarding the amount he spends, and he is entitled to be reimbursed by its owner. If they differ regarding the amount of the expenditure, the word of the bailee is accepted if he claims the expenditure was within reason; if he claims more than that, it is not established for him. If they differ regarding the duration for which he spent, the word of its owner is accepted, because the basic premise is the absence of that. If he cannot reach the judge and spends on it, intending to be reimbursed by its owner, and provides witnesses for the reimbursement, he is entitled to be reimbursed for what he spent, according to one narration, because it is customarily permitted, and there is no negligence on his part if he cannot find a judge. If he does this while it is possible to seek the permission of the judge without his permission, does he have the right to reimbursement? This is deduced from two narrations, as explicitly stated regarding a case where one spends on a mortgaged beast without the permission of the mortgagor, and regarding a guarantor who guarantees and pays without the permission of the person whose debt was guaranteed—does he have a right to reimbursement? There are two narrations: one is that he is entitled to reimbursement because it is customarily permitted; the second is that he is not entitled to it because he is negligent by failing to seek the judge's permission. If he spends without witnesses, whether he was unable to seek the judge's permission or it was possible for him to do so, there are two views regarding reimbursement as well. Whenever he feeds or waters the beast in his house, or elsewhere, himself, or orders his servant or companion, and they do so as he does with his own beasts, in accordance with the common custom, then he bears no liability, for this is customarily permitted, as it resembles what was explicitly stated.

Section: If he is entrusted with a beast and the owner says, "Do not feed it and do not water it," it is not permissible for him to refrain from feeding it, because the animal has sanctity in itself, and it is obligatory to preserve its life for the sake of the right of Allah the Almighty. If he feeds and waters it, he is like the category mentioned before. If he leaves it until it perishes, he is not liable for it. This is the view of the general scholars of the Shafiʿi school. Some of them said: He is liable because he committed an aggression by refraining from feeding it, resembling the case where the owner did not forbid him. This is the view of Ibn al-Mundhir, due to the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—against wasting property. Thus, the order of its owner and his silence become equal. Our argument is that he is obeying the order of its owner, so he is not liable for it, just as if he said, "Kill it."