similar to the spreading of the consequence of homicide (siraayat al-qawad), and it differs from the case of one who unties a waterskin, causing it to pour out; for that person is a transgressor by his act of untying, and it is standard for liquid to come out of an opened waterskin, whereas it is not standard for such a customary act [as lighting a fire] to spread to the destruction of another person's property. If that (49) was done with negligence—such as by stoking a fire that customarily spreads due to its magnitude, or during a strong wind that carries it, or by releasing a large amount of water that overflows, or by releasing water onto someone else's land, or by lighting a fire in someone else's house—he is liable for what was destroyed by it. This applies even if it spreads to property other than the house in which he lit the fire or the land onto which he released (50) the water; because it is the spreading of an act of aggression, similar to the spreading of a wound caused by transgression. If he lights a fire and it dries out the branches of another person's tree, he is liable for them; because this only happens as a result of a large fire, unless the branches are within his own airspace, in which case he is not liable for them; because their intrusion upon him is not a legal right, and he is not prevented from utilizing his house, due to its inviolability. This section corresponds exactly to the position of al-Shafi'i as we have mentioned.

Section: If the wind blows another person's garment into his house, he is obligated to preserve it; because it is a trust that has come under his control, so he is obligated to preserve it, like a found item (luqatah). If he does not know the owner, it is a found item to which its associated rulings apply. If he knows the owner, he is obligated to inform him, and if he fails to do so, he is liable; because he has detained another person's property without permission and without informing the owner, so he becomes like a usurper (ghasib). If a bird falls into his house, he is not obligated to preserve it nor to inform its owner; because it is protected by its own nature. If it enters his pigeon loft and he closes the door upon it with the intention of keeping it for himself, he is liable for it; because he has kept another person's property for himself, so he is like a usurper. Otherwise, there is no liability upon him; because he acts within his own loft as he wishes, and he does not become liable for another's property upon its destruction incidental to his own action in which he did not transgress.

Section: If a beast eats the grass of a people and the hand of its owner is upon it—due to him being with it—he is liable. If he is not with it, he is not liable for what it has eaten. If he borrows a beast from a man, and it destroys