Sultan, the reconciliation is not valid, and it is not permissible for him to take compensation. If he reconciles regarding the Hadd (fixed legal punishment) for false accusation of adultery (Qadhf), the reconciliation is not valid; because if it is for Allah Almighty, it is not for him to take its compensation, as it is not his right, so it resembles the Hadd of adultery and theft. And if it were his right, it would not be permissible to take compensation for it, because it is a right that is not financial, and therefore it does not lapse in exchange for a substitute, unlike retaliation (Qisas), and because it was legislated for the preservation of honor, so it is not permissible for him to take financial compensation for his honor. And is the Hadd extinguished by reconciliation? There are two views, based on the disagreement regarding whether it is a right of Allah Almighty or a right of a human being. If it is a right of Allah Almighty, it is not extinguished by the human's reconciliation or his relinquishment, like the Hadd of adultery and theft. If it is a right of a human being, it is extinguished by his reconciliation and his relinquishment, like retaliation. If he reconciles regarding the right of pre-emption (Shuf'a), the reconciliation is not valid, because it is a right legislated contrary to the original principle to repel the harm of partnership; so if he consents to enduring the harm, the right is extinguished without a substitute, like the Hadd of Qadhf, except that it is extinguished here in one view because it is a right of a human being.

Section: It is not permissible to project an eave (Janah) into a through-road (public street). This is a balcony (Rawshan) constructed upon the ends of timber beams buried in the wall, with their ends extending into the road, regardless of whether this customarily harms passersby or not. It is not permissible to support (76) a Sabat (77) upon it, as a matter of priority. A Sabat is a structure covering the entire air-space of the road supported by two walls, whether the two walls are his property or not, and whether the Imam (ruler) has given permission for that or not. Ibn 'Aqil said: If it causes no harm, it is permissible with the Imam's permission, because he is their representative, so his permission acts in place of the permission of those who share in a private road (cul-de-sac) that is not a thoroughfare. Abu Hanifa said: That which causes no harm is permissible, and if a man from the Muslims objects to it, it must be removed. Malik, al-Shafi'i, al-Awza'i, Ishaq, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad said: This is permissible if it does not harm passersby, and no one has the right to prevent it, because he is making use of space in which no one's ownership has been specified without causing harm, so it is permissible, like walking in the road or sitting in it. They differed regarding what does not cause harm.