They support their stance with the report recorded by al-Bukhārī from Abū Rāfiʿ, who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘The neighbor has the strongest claim to what adjoins his property.’

They also cite the narration collected by Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasāʾī, and al-Tirmidhī from Samurah: “The house-neighbor has the stronger claim to the house.”

Likewise, the compilers of the four Sunan relate from Jābir that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “The neighbor has the stronger right to the pre-emption of his neighbor; he must be waited for, even if he is absent, provided that they share the same access way.” This ḥadith is authentic.

They argue that the harm the Lawgiver intended to remove is the harm associated with neighboring properties. A neighbor may wrong his neighbor by raising his wall, peering into his privacy, or prying into his affairs; therefore, the Lawgiver granted him this right so that he might repel harm from himself, his dependants, and his wealth.

A neighbor enjoys sanctity and an acknowledged right, something urged by Allah and His Messenger. We have been commanded to honor him, and faith is denied of the one who mistreats him.

Some scholars considered the proofs advanced by both camps and saw that each side possessed evidence that cannot be dismissed and reasoning that cannot be refuted. Both parties have authentic aḥādīth and strong, acceptable rationales. They knew as well that the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ does not contradict itself; rather, its passages corroborate and harmonize with one another, for it issues from the One Who “does not speak from his own desire; it is nothing but revelation sent down” (53:3-4).

Hence they adopted a middle course between the two opinions and combined the two bodies of evidence, saying:

• The explicit wording of the ḥadith “When the boundaries are fixed and the paths are allotted” and its like shows that the right of pre-emption lapses once each party knows his boundary and has his own path.

• The explicit wording of the ḥadith “The neighbor has the stronger right to the pre-emption of his neighbor; he must be waited for, even if he is absent, when their path is one” establishes pre-emption on the basis of neighborhood when a single pathway is shared, and negates it when the pathway is separate. Thus the stated meaning and the implicit meaning are in agreement.

Among those who hold this view are the scholars of Basra and the jurist-traditionists. It is one narration from Imām Aḥmad and was preferred by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and our teacher ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Āl Saʿdī. Shaykh