a waste of wealth for both of them. As for the usurper, this is obvious. As for the owner, it is because he wants to construct this building anew, even though the building or the trees already exist; thus, he has wasted wealth and will incur the expense of constructing it a second time.

Thus, the author’s statement is not unrestricted; rather, it is qualified where it is not evident that the purpose is to cause harm. If that is evident, then he is prevented, for there should be neither harm nor reciprocating harm.

Question: If the landowner requests that the trees remain and offers to pay their value, the matter requires further detail. If the usurper has a valid reason to uproot them, he is not compelled to leave them—for example, if he uproots the palm trees in order to relocate them to land that he owns. But if he has no valid reason for refusing, and merely intends to uproot these plants and leave them exposed to the sun until they perish, then we do not allow him to do so, for several reasons:

First: this is corruption, and Allah does not love corruption.

Second: it is a waste of wealth, and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited the waste of wealth (1).

Third: leaving them in place and giving the usurper their value benefits him; his turning away from this benefit is deemed foolishness. Allah, Exalted is He, says: “Do not entrust the foolish with your wealth, which Allah has made a means of support for you.” [al-Nisa’ 4:5] If we are forbidden from giving such people their own wealth, then how could we not require this man to accept more than the value of his property?!

Fourth: the landowner has a right when he says: “Were it not for these...”