from the houses. Our view is that this is water he has acquired a sole entitlement to, so he may irrigate with it whatever he wishes, just as if he had acquired it solely from its source. We do not concede the argument they made regarding the two houses, and even if we were to concede it, the difference between the two cases is that each house leads out [to a common alley]; for the default assumption is that each house has residents, and thus assigning to the residents of each house a right of passage into a dead-end alley would mean they have no right to use that passage. Here, however, he is merely irrigating from his own private canal in which no one else shares with him. Thus, if that land were to acquire a customary right of irrigation from his canal, no one would be harmed by that. If he were irrigating from this river using a waterwheel (dūlāb), and he desired to irrigate with that water land that has no customary right of irrigation from that river, the ruling on that would follow the difference of opinion we mentioned regarding the preceding case. If the waterwheel is drawing from a non-owned river, it is permissible to irrigate with his share of the water land that has no customary right of irrigation from it, without any dispute that we are aware of. If the water becomes scarce, the one who arrives first is given priority, and then the next, as previously discussed.

Section: Each one of them may dispose of their private canal as they please, such as by running water other than this [river water] through it, or by building a mill, a waterwheel, or an 'abbāra (a wooden beam stretched across the two sides of the river), or an archway for water to pass through, or other forms of usage; because it is their property, and no one else has a right to it. As for the shared river, none of them may dispose of it in any of these ways, because they would be acting upon the shared river and its protected area (harīm) without the permission of their partners. The Qadi said regarding the 'abbāra: This is based on the two narrations regarding one who wishes to run his water through another's land. The correct view is that it is not permissible here, and it is not valid to draw an analogy between this and running water through another's land; for running water through another's land (85) benefits its owner, as it irrigates the roots of his trees and is used for drinking, initially and ultimately. This (86) does not benefit the river; rather, it might damage its two banks, and it does not irrigate anything for it. If one of the