they are so narrow that they cause harm to Muslims, and something is constructed in them, those responsible must be stopped and not allowed to proceed. But where the occupants’ use of a forecourt does not restrict Muslims’ passage, I see no objection to it.”

Al-Tahāwī said:
“This indicates that he regarded forecourts as belonging to their occupants, since he permitted renting them out. A sale should therefore not be invalidated by a stipulation concerning them.”

He said:
“What al-Shāfi‘ī’s statement indicates is that if the forecourt serves the house, it belongs to the house’s owner, although, in his view, it may not be sold.”

Al-Tahāwī mentioned that Abū Hanīfah’s position is that forecourts belong to the Muslim community and are not privately owned, just like the rest of the road. What al-Qādī, Ibn ‘Aqīl, and other scholars of Ahmad’s school stated is the second view: land may be privately owned, but not the road. Nevertheless, the landowner has a greater right than others to use the facilities serving his property, and thus has a greater right than others to the house’s forecourt. This is also Ahmad’s position regarding herbage growing on someone’s property: the owner has a greater right to it than others, even though he does not own it … (1) according to the majority: Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī, and Ahmad … (2).

Thus, building in the forecourt of a mosque or a house has a stronger claim to permissibility than building in the main thoroughfare. It is established in an authentic hadith reported by ‘Ā’ishah—may Allah be pleased with her—that Abū Bakr al-Siddīq established a mosque in the forecourt of his house. This is like the gravel-covered area that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb—may Allah be pleased with him—set aside outside the mosque of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—for those wishing to converse or engage in activities from which the mosque should be protected. It was neither a mosque nor like the road; rather, … (3) a special connection with the mosque. In a space such as this