The Qāḍī said: The other party shall be compelled to do so. This is the view of al-Shāfiʿī and the people of Iraq, because he is requesting the segregation of his share, which he is not harmed by differentiating, so it is necessary to respond to him, just as if they both would not be harmed by the division. For our part, we rely on the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "There shall be no harm and no reciprocated harm." Also, because it is a division in which he harms his partner, he shall not be compelled to perform it, just as if they were both harmed. And because it involves the wasting of wealth, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has forbidden its waste; and if it is forbidden for him to [waste his own wealth, then wasting] the wealth of another is even more so. ʿAmr ibn Jumayʿ has narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he said: "There is no 'taḍiyah' (forced division) among the heirs, except for that which is effectively divided." Abū ʿUbaydah said: It means that he leaves behind something which, if divided, would result in harm to some of them, or to all of them. Also, because we have agreed that harm is a preventive factor against division, and that harm in the right of one of them is preventive; it is not permissible for the preventive factor to be the harm of the requester, because he is satisfied with it from his side, so it is not permissible for it to be a preventive factor, just as if they both agreed to it despite their harm or the harm of one of them. Thus, the harm that prevents division is determined to be on the side of the requested party, and because it is harm not consented to by its owner, it prevents division, just as if they were both harmed. If the one harmed by it requests the division, such as the owner of the third in the hypothetical issue, the other party shall be compelled to it. This is the school of Abū Ḥanīfah and Mālik, because he is requesting the removal of the harm of partnership from himself through a matter in which there is no harm upon his partner, so he is compelled to it, just as if there were no harm in it. What validates this is that the harm of the requester is consented to from his side, so its ruling drops, and the other party has no harm upon him, so it becomes as if there is no harm in it. And he mentioned