For that is for him alone, so he has possession (yad) and the right of disposal over it. The second view(31) is that from its beginning to the furthest wall of the first house is shared between them; because that which faces this, both have the right of disposal over it, based on the principle that the first person has the right to open his door wherever he wishes in his wall, and what is beyond that belongs to the second; because it is not a courtyard for the first, nor does he have a right of passage in it. The third is that it is shared between them; because they both have possession and disposal over it. The same ruling applies if a man owns the upper floor of a khan (inn), and another owns its ground floor, and the owner of the upper floor has a staircase in the middle of the khan’s courtyard, and they disagree regarding the courtyard. What lies between the staircase and the khan’s door is shared between them, and what lies beyond that toward the end of the khan is subject to the two views: one of them is that it belongs to the owner of the ground floor. The second is that it is shared between them. If the staircase is at the end of the courtyard, the courtyard is shared between them, due to the existence of possession and disposal from both of them together. According to the view which states that the end of the path is exclusive to the owner of the door at the end, he has the right to exchange(32) what is exclusive to him therein, by making it a vestibule for himself, or incorporating it into his house in a manner that does not harm his neighbor, and he may not place anything on his neighbor's wall; because that is property of his which he holds exclusively.

Section: A man does not have the right to dispose of his property in a way that harms his neighbor, such as building a bathhouse (hammam) among houses, or opening a bakery among perfume shops (attarin), or making it a fulling workshop that shakes the walls and ruins them, or digging a well next to his neighbor’s well that draws away its water. Some of the companions of Abu Hanifa held this view. There is another narration from Ahmad: he is not prohibited from doing so. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi’i and some of the companions of Abu Hanifa; because he has disposed of his own exclusive property, and the right of another has not become attached to it, so he is not prevented from it, just as if he were to cook or bake in his house. They agreed, however, that he is prohibited from the pounding(33) that demolishes walls and causes them to scatter. Our evidence is the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "There shall be no harm and no reciprocating harm."(34) Furthermore, this constitutes harm to his neighbors, so he is prohibited from it, like the pounding that shakes and scatters the walls, and like irrigating land in a way that reaches the point of demolishing his neighbor's walls, or lighting a fire that spreads to burning them. They said: "In this case, the fire he ignited and the water he released spread, so he was considered a releaser of that into the property of another, resembling one who released it toward it intentionally." We say: The smoke is a component of the fire he ignited, so he was a releaser of it into his neighbor's property; it is therefore like the components of the fire and the water. As for the smoke from bread and cooking, its harm is slight, it cannot be guarded against, and it is subject to forbearance.