upon both. Our position is that it was destroyed by what he extended into the air (58) of the road, so he is liable for it, just as if he had built his wall leaning toward the road and it destroyed something, or he had set up a piece of wood on his property leaning toward the road, or as if the piece of wood that was not placed on the wall had fallen. Furthermore, it is an extension for which he is liable in part, so he is liable for the whole, like what we have mentioned. Also, it was destroyed by his transgression, so he is liable for it, just as if he had placed a structure on the land of the road. The evidence of his transgression is the obligation of liability for the part; if it were permissible, he would not be liable for it, like other permissible things. Additionally, this is a piece of wood; if the part extending out were to snap and fall, destroying something, he would be liable for what it destroyed (59). Therefore, he must be liable for what the whole of it destroyed, like all other situations where liability is incumbent. Moreover, we know of no instance where the whole liability is incumbent due to a part of the wood, while only half is incumbent due to the whole of it. If the extension of the wing (projection) into a cul-de-sac was done without the permission of its residents, he is liable for what it destroyed. If he did that with their permission, there is no liability upon him, because it is permissible for him and he is not a transgressor (60) in doing so.

Section: If he extends a gutter (mizab) into the road, and it falls onto a person or an object and destroys it, he is liable for it. Abu Hanifa stated this. It is reported from Malik that he is not liable for what it destroyed, because he is not a transgressor in extending it, so he is not liable for what was destroyed by it, just as if he had extended it into his own property. Al-Shafi'i said: If the whole of it falls, he is liable for half the compensation, because it was destroyed by what he placed on his property and the property of another. If the gutter snapped and that which extended beyond the wall fell from it, he is liable for all that was destroyed by it, because all of it is on property that is not his. Our position is what has already been stated regarding the wing; we do not concede that extending it is permissible, for he has extended into the air of another person's property something that causes harm to it, so it is like if he had extended it into the property of a specific person without their permission. As for extending something—from a wing, a covered passage, a gutter, or otherwise—into the property of a specific person, he is a transgressor and is liable for what is destroyed by it. I know of no disagreement regarding this.

Section: If his riding animal urinates on a road, and an animal slips on it and dies as a result, our companions said: