justice, because the man has exerted effort upon it, and it has grown through his work. The same applies to a sheep outside the case of pre-emption: according to the preponderant view, if it becomes fat, its inseparable increase belongs to the purchaser.

Thus, the correct view is contrary to what is implied by the author’s words. His words indicate that inseparable increase follows the property and that the purchaser receives nothing. The preponderant view, however, is that it does not follow the property. Yet, if it cannot be separated, its value is assessed for the purchaser: the date palms are appraised when they are small shoots and then appraised when they are fully grown. The land containing the palms is appraised according to their state at the time of sale, and then appraised according to their state when pre-emption is exercised. The difference between the two values belongs to the purchaser, since it is the value of the inseparable increase. This was the view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and without doubt it is the just view. Justice requires that every person be given what he has laboured over and worked upon. This is supported by the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “No wrongful planter has any right.” (1) Its implication is that a planter who is not wrongful does have a right; and the purchaser is not a wrongful planter, so he has that right.

His statement: “If he builds or plants, the claimant of pre-emption may acquire it at its value, or have it removed while compensating him for its diminution in value.”

The author’s statement, “If he builds or plants,” conflicts with what he stated earlier: that the right of pre-emption must be exercised immediately. How, then, could there be building or planting when pre-emption is immediate? It may indeed happen through a stratagem: the sale is concealed from the co-owner, and the purchaser comes as though he were acting as his co-owner’s agent, and then carries out work,