in it, according to the details and differences we have mentioned. This is because whenever he builds a structure that causes harm—either because it is in a narrow road, or in a wide one where it harms passersby, or he built it for himself—he has transgressed, and he is liable for what is destroyed by it. However, if he builds in a wide road, in a position where the structure causes no harm, for the benefit of the Muslims—such as building a mosque that is needed for prayer, in a corner or similar—then there is no liability upon him, and it is all the same whether the Imam permitted it or did not. It is possible that the Imam's permission is considered necessary in construction for the benefit of the Muslims, unlike digging, because there is a need for digging for the benefit of the road, repairing it, and removing mud and water from it, unlike construction. Thus, digging is treated in the same manner as cleaning it, digging a hollow (30) in it, removing a stone that harms passersby, placing gravel in a hole in it [to fill it and level it] (31) by removing mud and the like from it, roofing a conduit in it, and placing a stone in mud therein so that people may step on it or cross over it. All of this is permissible, and he is not liable for what is destroyed by it; I know of no disagreement regarding this. The same should apply to the construction of bridges. It is also possible that the Imam's permission is considered necessary because its benefit is not widespread, unlike other things. If he roofs a mosque, spreads a mat (32) in it, installs a door for it, places a shelf in it for the benefit (33) of its congregation, hangs a lamp in it, or builds a wall in it, and something is destroyed by it, there is no liability upon him. The companions of Al-Shafi'i said: If he does any of this without the Imam's permission, he is liable, according to one of the two views. Abu Hanifa said: He is liable if the neighbors do not permit it. Our argument is that it is an act in which he has done good and has not transgressed, so he is not liable for what is destroyed by it, just as if the Imam and the neighbors had permitted it; and because this is permitted by custom, since it is customary to perform such charitable acts without seeking permission, so no liability is due, as in the case of that which is permitted explicitly.