What is the ruling regarding liability if a wall, which began leaning toward a public area, could have been demolished but the owner failed to do so, and no demand for demolition was made?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
If the owner could have demolished the leaning wall but failed to do so, and no demand was made for its demolition, then there is no liability, according to the established text from Ahmad. This is also the apparent view of Al-Shafi'i, and similar views were held by Al-Hasan, Al-Nakha'i, Al-Thawri, and the Ashab al-Ra'y (People of Opinion). The reasoning is that the wall was built on the owner's property, and the leaning occurred without the owner's action, similar to a collapse that occurs before the leaning or when demolition is impossible.
Supporting text
A secondary view within our companions holds that the owner is liable because leaving the wall leaning constitutes trespass, thus liability applies as if it were built leaning initially. Furthermore, if the owner were compelled to demolish it and refused, they would be liable, implying liability should exist even without compulsion if the state of leaning is established.