its preservation. If it leans toward his own property before it falls, and does not exceed it, there is no liability upon him, because it is equivalent to his building it leaning within his own property. If it leans before falling toward the airspace of the road, or toward the property of a person, or property shared between him and someone else, we examine the situation: if it is not possible for him to demolish it, there is no liability upon him, because he did not transgress by building it, nor was he negligent in failing to demolish it due to his inability to do so; it is similar to if it fell without having leaned. If it were possible for him to demolish it but he did not, there are two conditions: first, that he is requested to demolish it, and second, that he is not requested to do so. If he is not requested to do so, he is not liable, according to the explicitly stated view from Ahmad, which is the apparent meaning of al-Shafi'i's words, and similar to it is the statement of (49) al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, and the people of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y); because he built it on his own property, and the leaning occurred without his action, so it is similar to if it fell before leaning. Some of our companions mentioned another view regarding this, which is that he is liable. This is the opinion of Ibn Abi Layla, Abu Thawr, and Ishaq, because he is a transgressor by leaving it in a leaning state, thus he is liable for what is destroyed by it, just as if he had built it leaning toward that [area] from the beginning. Furthermore, if he were requested to demolish it and did not, he would be liable for what was destroyed by it (50); if that (51) were not a cause for liability, he would not be liable upon request, just as if it were not leaning, or if it were leaning toward his own property. As for if he is requested to demolish it and does not, Ahmad remained silent on the answer regarding this. Our companions said: He is liable, and Ahmad indicated as much. This is the school of Malik, and similar to it was stated by al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, and al-Thawri. Abu Hanifa said: The preferred legal view (istihsan) is that he is liable, because the right of passage belongs to the Muslims, and the leaning of the wall prevents them from that, [so they had] (52) the right to demand its removal. If he did not remove it, he is liable, just as if he placed a load on his own wall, and it fell into the property of another, and he was requested to remove it but did not until a person stumbled upon it. There is another view that there is no liability upon him. Abu Hanifa said: This is the analogy (qiyas), because he built it on his own property, and it did not fall by his action, so it is similar to if he had not been requested to demolish it, or if it fell before leaning, or if it were impossible for him to demolish it. Moreover, if liability were necessitated by that (50), the request would not be a condition for it (50), just as if he had built it leaning toward land other than his own. So if we say: