people’s passage, and passersby may trip over it at night, as may blind people by night or day. Moreover, it remains permanently in place, and its builder may therefore come to claim ownership of it. Whoever arrives first has the greater right to the place so long as he remains there.”

I say:

All of this concerns someone who builds the raised platform for his own use, as both the beginning and the end of the discussion indicate. This is why the possibility that he might consequently claim ownership of it was given as a reason. Yet the reasoning offered in this case implies that the restriction applies only where harm may reasonably be expected. If, then, the structure is assumed to stand in line with what lies to its right and left, without causing passersby any harm whatsoever, this reason no longer applies. The implication of this reasoning is that it is permissible when that reason is absent, in accordance with one of the two opinions mentioned by the judge.

In short, there are two opinions concerning the permissibility, with the ruler’s permission, of erecting a structure for the builder’s exclusive use that causes no harm whatsoever.

A comparable case is that of extending a rawshan (projecting structure) or a waterspout over a through road without causing any harm. Is this permissible with the ruler’s permission? There are two opinions within Ahmad’s school:

The first is that it is permissible, as preferred by Ibn ‘Aqīl and Abū al-Barakāt.

(The second is that it is not permissible, as preferred by several scholars. This is the well-known position reported from Ahmad, whether understood as outright prohibition or mere discouragement. Abū Bakr al-Mardhawī mentioned reports concerning this in Kitāb al-Wara‘ (The Book of Scrupulousness).

Among these is al-Mardhawī’s report that he roofed a house for Ahmad and directed its waterspout towards the road. The following morning, Ahmad said:

“Summon the carpenter for me so that he may redirect the water