And liability for compensation in such a case is the position of Abū Hanīfa and Mālik, one of the two positions reported from Ahmad, and one of the two views within the Shāfiʿī school. The amount due is half the blood money, and assessed compensation for injuries for which no fixed amount is prescribed. Payment falls upon the group collectively responsible for their blood money, if possible; otherwise, it falls upon them personally, according to the sounder of the two scholarly opinions.

He also said—may Allah have mercy on him:

If someone needs to convey his water through another person’s land, and this causes no harm, he may do so. According to another report from him, the landowner (1) may prevent him, just as he may if the person has no need of the water or no need to convey it through that land.

He said:

If a man has a watercourse running through unowned land, and someone whose land adjoins it wishes to divert it, or part of it, towards his own land, causing no harm apart from his benefiting from the water—as he could already benefit from it in its existing course, though this would make it easier for him to do so—I have ruled that this is permissible and that it is unlawful to prevent him. For just as the passage of water through land benefits the owner of the water, thus giving him a right to it, it also benefits the owner of the land, as in the report concerning ʿUmar. Here, he benefits from the other man’s water being conveyed through his land, just as there the other man benefits from his land.

A comparable case is where the owner of a wall has an interest in beams being laid upon it, with