to one of them, for it is not possible for it to be directed toward both of them simultaneously; thus, its indicative value is nullified, just as with decoration. Furthermore, their hadith is not established by the experts of transmission (ahl al-naql), and its chain of narration (isnad) is unknown, as stated by Ibn al-Mundhir. Al-Shalanji (15) said: I mentioned this hadith to Ahmad, but he was not convinced by it, and I mentioned it to Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, who said: "This is not a hadith," and he did not declare it authentic (sahih). There is criticism regarding the hadith of ‘Ali. Moreover, what they have mentioned regarding custom (‘urf) is not correct; for the custom is to turn the face of a wall outward so that people may see it, just as a man wears his best garments, the uppermost of which is apparent to the people so that they may see it, and he adorns himself with it; thus, there is no evidence in it.

Section: A claim is not given preference by decoration or beautification, nor is it given preference by the fact that one of them has a screen (sutra) on the bricks that is not built onto it, because this is something overlooked and it is possible for it to have been newly introduced.

Section: If the owner of the upper floor and the owner of the lower floor dispute regarding the walls of the lower house, they belong to the owner of the lower floor, because he is the one who benefits from them, and they are part of the house, so they belong to its owner. If they dispute the walls (16) of the upper floor, they belong to the owner of the upper floor for the same reason. If they dispute the ceiling, they are to swear mutual oaths, and it belongs to both of them. This is the opinion of al-Shafi’i. Abu Hanifah said: It belongs to the owner of the lower floor because the ceiling is upon his property, so his word is taken, just as if they disputed over a saddle upon the mount of one of them, the word would be that of its owner. It was narrated from Malik that it belongs to the owner of the lower floor, and it was also narrated from him that it belongs to the owner of the upper floor, because he sits upon it and exercises control over it, and he cannot reside there except by means of it. Our response is that it is a partition between their two properties, both benefit from it, and it is not attached to the structure of either of them with the attachment of a permanent edifice; therefore, it is shared between them, like a wall between two properties. Their statement "It is upon the property of the owner of the lower floor" is refuted by the walls of the upper floor, and it is not like a saddle upon a mount, because no one benefits from a saddle except its owner, and it is not intended for anything else but it, so it is in his possession. Whereas this ceiling is benefited from by each of them, for it is the sky for the owner of the lower floor