Some scholars have said: If the harm is substantial and the owner has no particular legitimate interest, then he should be given an equivalent replacement or its value—especially if we know that the owner’s intention is to harm the usurper. This view has some merit, for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “There should be neither harm nor reciprocating harm.” (1) And he said: “Whoever harms another, Allah will harm him.” (2) However, if holding him liable in this manner would help reduce usurpation and transgression against people, then the position of the school is stronger than the second view. This is the preponderant view.

His statement, “If he builds,” means: the usurper.

His statement, “on the land,” means: the usurped land.

His statement, “or plants,” means: on the usurped land.

His statement, “he must remove it, compensate for its diminution in value, level it, and pay rent”—all of this is in addition to his sin.

Thus, first, he must “remove it,” if the owner of the land demands this and says, “Remove what you planted on my land.” He is then obliged to do so.

Likewise, regarding the statement, “or builds on it”: if the owner says to him, “Demolish the building,” he is obliged to demolish it. This is reasonable if the owner of the land has a purpose