So whenever it leads to harm, the entitlement ceases; due to the cessation of its condition.

Section: If the owner of a wall gives permission to his neighbor to build upon his wall, or to place a screen upon it, or to place his wooden beams upon it in a location where he is not entitled to place them, it is permitted. Once he has done what he was given permission to do, the loan (ariyah) becomes binding. If the lender then retracts it, he does not have the right to do so, and the borrower is not obligated to remove what he has done; because his permission necessitated permanence and continuity, and there is harm to him in the demolition, so the lender does not possess that right, just as if he had lent him land for burial or planting, he would not have the right to demand the removal of the deceased or the plants without compensation. If he intends to demolish the wall without a need, he does not have the right to do so; because the borrower has earned the right to have the wooden beams remain upon it, and there is no harm in their remaining. If it is already dilapidated, he may demolish it, and the owner of the structure and wooden beams is responsible for removing them. If the wall is restored, the borrower does not have the right to replace his structure and wooden beams except with new permission, whether he builds it with the original materials or others. Likewise, if the borrower removes his wooden beams (99), or they fall on their own, he does not have the right to replace them except with renewed permission; because the prohibition against removal was only due to the harm involved, and here the removal has occurred without his action, so it is similar to trees in the ground that have been uprooted. This is one of the two opinions among the followers of al-Shafi'i; they said in the other: he has the right to do so, because he has earned the right to have that remain in perpetuity. This is not the case; for he only earned the right to have them remain out of necessity to prevent the harm of removal, and here the removal has already occurred, so the entitlement no longer remains. If the owner of the wall removes it out of hostility, the other party has the right to replace it; because it was removed without right, through transgression by the one upon whom the right lies, so the right does not lapse due to his hostility. If an outsider (100) removes it, its owner does not have the right to replace it without the owner's permission; because it was removed without any hostility from the owner, so it is similar to the case where it fell on its own.

Section: If he gives him permission to place his wooden beams or to build upon his wall in exchange for compensation, it is permitted, whether it is a lease for a known period or a settlement (sulh) for placing them in perpetuity. Whenever it is removed, he has the right to replace it, whether it