its liability is triggered if he is requested; for the request from every Muslim or dhimmi (protected non-Muslim subject) necessitates liability if its leaning is toward the road, because every one of them has the right of passage, so they possess the right to demand it, just as if the wall leaned toward the property of a group, then (53) each one of them possesses the right to demand it. If one person demands it, and the owner of the wall requests a delay, or the Imam grants him a deferment, the liability is not lifted from him, because the right belongs to all (54) the Muslims, so no single one of them has the authority to waive it. If the demand is made by the lessee of the house, its mortgagee, its borrower, or its bailee, there is no liability upon them, because they do not have the power to demolish it, and the wall is not their property. If the owner is requested in this situation, but it is not possible for him to reclaim the house and demolish the wall, there is no liability upon him due to his lack of negligence. If it is possible for him to reclaim it, such as the lender (55), the depositor, and the mortgagor if it is possible for him to redeem the pledge, but he does not do so, he is liable, because he was able to demolish it. If the owner is under interdiction due to prodigality, minority, or insanity, and he is the one requested, the liability does not become incumbent upon him, because he is not qualified for the demand. If his guardian or executor is requested, but he does not demolish it, the liability is on the owner, because the cause of the liability is his property, so the liability is upon him rather than the administrator, like the agent with the principal. If the property is shared among a group, and one of them is requested to demolish it, there are two possibilities: first, that nothing is incumbent upon him, because he cannot demolish it without their permission, so he is like one who is unable to demolish it. Second, it is incumbent upon him in proportion to his share, because he is capable of demolition by demanding [it from] his partners and compelling them to demolish it, thus he becomes negligent by that. As for if the leaning of the wall is toward the property of a specific person, whether an individual or a group, the ruling is according to what we have mentioned, except that the right to demand belongs to the owner or the inhabitant of the property toward which it leaned, not anyone else. If it belongs to a group, whoever among them demands it, the demolition becomes mandatory upon his demand, just as if one person demanded the demolition of what is leaning toward the road, except that whenever he demands it (56), then the owner of the property grants him a delay, or exonerates him from it, or the inhabitant of the house toward which it leaned does so, 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.