leaving its construction. The second narration is that he is not compelled. It was narrated from Ahmad what indicates this, and it is stronger in terms of evidence, and it is the school of Abu Hanifa; because it is property that has no sanctity in itself, so its owner is not compelled to spend on it, as if he were the sole owner. Also, because it is the construction of a wall, he is not compelled to do it, like in the initial state. Furthermore, it does not escape one of three cases: either he is compelled to build it for his own right, or for his neighbor's right, or for the rights of both. It is not permissible that he be compelled for his own right, by evidence of the situation if he were the sole owner, nor for the right of another, as if his neighbor were the sole owner. Therefore, if neither of these individually makes it mandatory, they do not do so when combined. This differs from partition, as that is a removal of harm from both parties without causing harm. Here, however, there is harm due to the cost and expenditure of his wealth. Being compelled to remove harm without causing harm does not necessitate being compelled to remove it in a way that causes harm, as evidenced by the partition of property whose division causes harm. It also differs from tearing down a wall that is feared to collapse; because he fears his wall falling on what it would destroy, so he is compelled to perform what removes that; this is why he is compelled even if he is the sole owner of the wall, unlike our issue. We do not concede that there is harm in leaving it unbuilt, for the harm occurred with its collapse, and leaving the construction is merely abstaining from what would yield benefit; a person cannot be prevented from this, as evidenced by the initial state. Even if we conceded that it is harm, the compulsion itself contains harm, and harm is not removed by harm. Furthermore, the refusing party might derive no benefit from the wall, or the harm to him might outweigh the benefit, or he might be insolvent, unable to build it, and thus be burdened with a cost he cannot afford. According to this narration, if one of them refuses, he is not compelled. If his partner wishes to build it, he [the refusing party] cannot prevent him; because he has a right to support and a foundation (rasm), so he cannot be prevented from it. He has the right to build it using the debris if he wishes, or by using materials of his own. If he builds it with his own materials and the debris, the wall is shared between them just as it was before; because what was spent was merely spent on what had already been destroyed, which is an effect, not an entity he owns. If he builds it with his own materials, the wall is his property exclusively, and he may prevent his partner from benefiting from it, or from placing his timber and foundations upon it; because the wall belongs to him. If he wishes to tear it down, if he built it with the [original] debris, he cannot tear it down; because it is the property of both, and he is not permitted to dispose of it in a way that causes harm to both. If he built it with his own materials, he may tear it down; because it is his property exclusively. If his partner says: "I will pay you half the cost of the construction, so do not tear it down," he is not compelled to accept; because since he was not compelled to build it, he is not compelled to preserve it. If someone other than the builder wishes to tear it down, or to compel the builder to tear it down, he has no right to do so, according to both narrations; for if he does not have the right to prevent him from building it, then he certainly does not have the right to compel him to tear it down. If he had a right of usage on the wall, or a placement of timber, he may say to him: "Either accept from me half its value and enable me to utilize it and place my timber, or tear down your wall so we may rebuild it together." The other is then obliged to respond to him; because he does not have the right to invalidate his foundations and his benefit through his construction. If he does not wish to utilize it, and the builder demands the cost or the value from him, he is not obliged to pay it; because if he is not compelled to build, he is certainly not compelled to pay the cost, unless he had granted permission for the construction and expenditure, in which case he is bound by what he permitted. As for the first narration, whenever he refuses, the judge compels him to do so. If he fails to act, the judge takes from his wealth and spends on it. If he has no wealth, and the partner spends on it with the judge's permission, or the partner's permission, he may return to collect from him when he is able. If he wishes to build it, the partner cannot prevent him. Regarding what was spent: if he did so voluntarily, he has no right to reclaim it; but if he intended to reclaim it, does he have the right to do so? There are two potential views, based on the issue of settling another's debt without his permission. If he builds it for himself with the debris, it is shared between them. If he builds it with his own materials, it is his exclusively. If he wishes to tear it down, he may do so, unless his partner pays him half its value, in which case he cannot tear it down; because if he was compelled to build it, he is all the more compelled to preserve it.

Section: If there is no old wall between their properties, and one of them asks the other to construct a wall to partition their properties, and he refuses, he is not compelled to do so, according to a single narration. If he wishes to build it alone, he may not build except on his own property exclusively; because he does not have the right to dispose of his neighbor's property that is particular to him, nor the shared property without having a foundation (rasm) for it, and here there is no foundation. I know of no disagreement on this.