the entrant entered without his permission, then there is no liability upon the digger, because there was no transgression on his part. If he entered with his permission, and the well was obvious and uncovered, and the entrant was sighted and could see it, then there is also no liability, because the one who fell in destroyed himself; it is similar to if he had offered him a knife (43), and he killed [himself with it] (44). If the entrant was blind, or if it was in darkness where the entrant could not see it, or if he had covered its opening (45) and the entrant did not know of it until he fell into it, then he is liable for it. This was stated by Shurayh, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, Hammad, and Malik. It is one of the two views of the companions of al-Shafi'i. They said (46) in the other view: He is not liable, because he was destroyed by his own action (47). Our argument is that he was destroyed by his [the digger's] cause, so he is liable, just as if he had offered him poisoned food and he ate it; this invalidates what they mentioned. If they disagree, and the owner of the house says, "I did not give you permission to enter," and the guardian of the deceased claims that he did give him permission, then the word of the owner is to be accepted, because he is the denier. If he says, "It was uncovered," and the other says, "It was covered," then the word of the guardian of the fallen person is to be accepted, because the outward appearance is with him, for it is apparent that if it had been uncovered, he would not have fallen into it. It is also possible that the word of the owner is accepted, because the basic principle is the freedom of his liability, so it should not be burdened by doubt, and because the basic principle is that it was not covered.

Section: If he builds a wall on his property that is leaning toward the road or toward someone else's property, and something is destroyed by it, or it falls (48) on something and destroys it, he is liable, because he is a transgressor by doing so, for he has no right to benefit from construction in the airspace of another's property or in shared airspace. Furthermore, he is exposing it to fall onto others outside of his property, so it is similar to setting a sickle in it with which to hunt. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, and I know of no disagreement regarding it. If he builds it on his property standing straight, or leaning toward his own property, and it falls without having been ruined or leaning, there is no liability upon its owner for what is destroyed by it, because he did not transgress by building it, nor did he display negligence.