that it leaned toward, it is permissible, because the right belongs to him, and he has the authority to waive it. If it leans toward a cul-de-sac, the right belongs to the people of the cul-de-sac, and the demand is for them, because the property is theirs; demolition becomes mandatory upon the demand of one of them, and he is not absolved by his [the one who demanded] exoneration or deferment unless all of them consent to that, because the right belongs to all of them.

Section: If a formal notice is served to the owner of a wall to demolish it, and he sells it while it is leaning, there is no liability upon the seller, because it is no longer his property, nor is there liability upon the purchaser, because he has not been requested to demolish it. The same applies if he gifts it and puts the recipient in possession of it. If we hold that the gift is binding, the liability is removed from him upon the mere conclusion of the contract. If liability becomes binding and what was destroyed by it is a human being, the blood money is upon his 'aqilah (agnate kin). If his 'aqilah denies that the wall belonged to their kin, the payment of the blood money is not incumbent upon them, unless that is established by evidence, because (57) the principle is the absence of obligation upon them, so it is not made binding by doubt. If the owner of the wall confesses, the liability is incumbent upon him, not them, because the 'aqilah does not bear the burden of a confession. Similarly, if they deny that he was requested to demolish it, the ruling is according to what we have mentioned. If the wall is in the possession of their kin, and he is an inhabitant of the house, that does not establish the obligation upon them, because the indication of that regarding ownership is from the perspective of external appearance (zahir), and rights are not established by external appearance alone; rather, it is used to strengthen a claim.

Section: If the wall does not lean but has developed cracks, if its fall is not feared because the cracks are longitudinal, its demolition is not mandatory, and its ruling in this regard is that of a sound wall, because its fall is not feared, so it is like the sound one. If its fall is feared, such as if the cracks are transverse, its ruling is that of a leaning wall, because destruction is feared from it, so it is like the leaning one.

Section: If one extends a wing (projection) or a sabat (covered passage) into a public road, and it collapses, or something from it falls onto something and destroys it, the one who extended it is liable for it. The companions of Al-Shafi'i said: If a piece of wood falls that was not built into his wall, the liability for what it destroyed becomes mandatory, but if it was built into his wall, half the liability becomes mandatory, because it was destroyed by what he placed upon his property and the property of another, so the liability is divided.