for that reason. If one of them has a load upon it and the other is riding it, it belongs to the rider, because his control is stronger. If they differ over the load, and the rider and the owner of the animal both claim it, it belongs to the rider, because his hand is upon the animal and the load together; this is similar to the case if a tenant and a landlord differ over goods inside the house. If the owner of the animal and the rider dispute over the saddle, it belongs to the owner of the animal, because the saddle is by custom the property of the owner of the horse. If two people dispute over clothes on a slave belonging to one of them, they belong to the owner of the slave, because the hand of the slave is upon them. If the owner of the clothes and another person dispute over the slave who is wearing them, they are equal in the matter, because the benefit of the clothes returns to the slave, not to the owner of the clothes. The position of al-Shafi'i in this section and the one before it is as we have mentioned.

Section: If the owner of land and the owner of a watercourse differ over a wall between them, it belongs to both of them, and each of them shall swear an oath regarding the half which is adjudicated to him. Al-Shafi'i said the same. Abu Hanifa said: It belongs to the owner of the watercourse, because it is for his benefit. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: It belongs to the owner of the land, because it is connected to his land. Our position is that it is a barrier between their two properties, so their hand is upon it, and it belongs to both, just as if the owner of the upper floor and the lower floor disputed over the ceiling between them, or a wall between their two houses. The two arguments for preference they mentioned are opposite, so they balance each other out. If the owner of the upper floor and the lower floor dispute over the ceiling between them, it is between them likewise. In every situation where we have said it is divided between them in two halves, each of them only swears an oath regarding the half he obtains, not the other half; because he gains nothing from that which he does not obtain, and therefore he is not asked to swear regarding it, just as the plaintiff does not swear regarding what the defendant takes.