he benefits from something over which no one's ownership has been specifically determined. If it is said: "This causes harm to the people of the path (darb); because by making it a through-way, he uses it to pass through from the street." We say: The path does not become a through-way; rather, his house becomes a through-way, and no one has the right to use his house for passage. As for if his door is in the street and the back of his house is toward the private alley that is not a through-way, and he wishes to open a door to the alley for passage, he may not do so; because he has no right in the path which has had the ownership of its masters specifically determined. It is possible that it is permissible, as we mentioned regarding the view that preceded. If he wishes to open a door in it not for passage, or to make a door that he keeps nailed shut, or a window, it is permissible; because since he had the right to raise the wall in its entirety, doing so to a part of it is more appropriate. Ibn Aqil said: "In my view, it is possible that it is not permissible; because the form of a door, with the passage of time, might be used as evidence for the right of passage, thus harming the people of the path, unlike raising the wall, for it does not indicate anything."

Section: If a man has two adjacent houses, the back of each one facing the back of the other, and the door of each one is in a private alley that is not a through-way, and he removes the barrier between them and makes them one house, it is permissible. If he opens a door from each of them to the other, to enable himself to pass from each one of them to both houses, it is not permissible. Al-Qadi mentioned this; because that establishes passage in the path that is not a through-way from a house that did not have a path to it therein, and because that might lead to establishing preemption (shuf'a) according to the opinion of one who establishes it based on the path for each of the two houses in the alley of the other. It is possible that it is permissible; because he has the right to remove the entire barrier, so [removing] a part of it is more appropriate, and this is more likely; and what we mentioned regarding the prohibition is invalidated by the case where he removes the entire wall. In every situation where we said: "He does not have the right to do it," if the people of the path make a settlement with him for a known compensation, or they permit him without compensation, it is permissible.

Section: If the owner of the two doors disputes over the path, and they both lay claim to it, and there is no door for anyone else in it, there are three views regarding it: One of them is that the path is ruled, from its beginning to the door that is nearest to its beginning, to be between them; because both have the right of passage in it together. And what is beyond that, up to the end of the path, is for the other [person]; because the right of passage in that is for him alone, so he has possession (yad) and disposal over it.