and he is not able to do that while there is partnership, so it was necessary to compel the other to do it, according to his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying: "There shall be no harm and no reciprocated harm." When this is established, there has been disagreement regarding the harm that prevents division. In the statement of al-Khiraqī, it is that which does not allow for either of them to benefit from his share individually in the same way he used to benefit from it during the partnership, such as if there is a small house between them; if it were divided, each of them would receive a narrow space that would not be useful. [And if it were possible to benefit from it for something other than a house, but it were not possible to benefit from it as] a house, he would also not be compelled to divide, because this is harm that follows the same ruling as destruction. From Aḥmad, there is another narration that the preventing factor is that the value of one's share decreases upon division compared to its state during partnership, regardless of whether they benefit from it divided or not. The Qāḍī said: This is the apparent view of Aḥmad, because he said in the narration of al-Maymūnī: "If some of them say to divide and others say not to, if there is a decrease in its price, it should be sold and they should be given the price." Thus, he considered the decrease in price. This is also the apparent view of al-Shāfiʿī, because the decrease in its value is harm, and harm is negated by the Law (Shari'ah). Mālik said: The refuser is compelled even if he incurs harm, drawing an analogy to what has no harm in it. This is not correct because of his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying: "There shall be no harm and no reciprocated harm." And because there is harm in its division, it should not be compelled, just like the division of a jewel by breaking it, and because its division involves the wasting of wealth, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has forbidden its waste. Analogy to what has no harm in it is invalid due to the difference between them. If one of the two partners is harmed by the division while the other is not, such as two men who have a house between them, where one owns two-thirds and the other one-third, then if they divide it, the owner of the third is harmed because he does not obtain what constitutes a house, while the other is not harmed because he keeps what becomes a separate house; if the owner of the two-thirds requests the division, the other shall not be compelled to do it. Abū al-Khaṭṭāb mentioned this, and it is the apparent view of Aḥmad in the narration of Ḥanbal, where he said: "Any division in which there is harm, I do not see that it should be divided." This is the view of Ibn Abī Laylā and Abū Thawr. And he said