And likewise with ritual purity: when it has been performed in a valid manner that differs from the muḥtasib’s view—such as removing impurity with liquids, performing minor ablution with water altered by pure substances, or excusing an amount of impurity equivalent to a dirham—he has no grounds for objecting to any of this. As for performing minor ablution with nabīdh (an infused date or raisin drink), two possibilities may be considered. The first is that he may object, because this might lead to deeming its use permissible when water is unavailable but nabīdh is present, and might also lead to permitting people to drink enough of it to become intoxicated. The other possibility is that he may not object, since doing so would amount to disallowing a matter in which independent legal reasoning is permitted. This, then, concerns enjoining what is right with respect to the rights of Allah, Most High.
As for the rights of human beings, they are of two kinds: public and private. Public rights include the case of a town whose water supply has fallen out of service, whose wall has been demolished, or which is visited by needy wayfarers whom its inhabitants cease to assist. If there are funds in the public treasury, the inhabitants are not to be ordered to repair their water supply, build their wall, or assist wayfarers in passing through the town, because these are obligations that fall upon the public treasury, not upon them. The same applies if their mosques and congregational mosques have been demolished.
If, however, the public treasury lacks funds, the obligation to build their wall, repair their water supply, maintain their mosques and congregational mosques, and assist wayfarers falls upon all those among them who possess the means. Once those capable of doing so begin this work and start assisting wayfarers, the muḥtasib no longer has the authority to order them to do it, nor are they required to seek permission for doing so. If, however, they wished to demolish what they were rebuilding of the ruined structures, they could not proceed to demolish anything serving all the inhabitants of the town—such as its wall or congregational mosque—without the permission of the ruler, rather than the muḥtasib. The ruler would authorize the demolition only after requiring them to undertake its reconstruction. In the case of mosques belonging specifically to particular clans and tribes, they may dispense with seeking his permission.
The muḥtasib must compel them to rebuild what they demolished, but he may not compel them to complete what they newly began. Aḥmad said, in a report transmitted by Abū Dāwūd, concerning a mosque that people wished to raise above ground and place a watercourse beneath, while the elders prevented them, saying, “We cannot climb up”: “The view of the majority is to be followed”—meaning the people of the mosque.
If those possessing the means refrain from rebuilding what has been demolished and restoring what has fallen into disrepair, then, if residence in the town remains possible and its water supply—even if damaged—is sufficient, he should leave them and the matter alone. If residence there becomes impossible because its water supply has ceased to function and its wall has collapsed, he must consider the matter. If the town is a frontier outpost whose abandonment would harm Islam, the ruler may not permit its inhabitants to move away. Its ruling is that of an emergency requiring all those capable to rise to the task. In such a case, the muḥtasib’s role is to notify the ruler of the matter and encourage those possessing the means to undertake the work.