If someone asks: Why do you hold him liable for the loss in value, whereas in the case of usurpation you give the usurper no right? We say: Because the purchaser planted and built lawfully, whereas the usurper planted and built without any right, so he is entitled to nothing. The Prophet ﷺ said: “A wrongful planter has no right.” (1) The implication is that a planter who is not wrongful does have a right.

If the claimant of pre-emption says, “I want to demolish the building and uproot the planting, but I will not compensate for the loss in value,”

we say: Then your right of pre-emption is forfeited; you have no claim, and the land, building, and planting remain the purchaser’s.

His statement: “And its owner may take it without causing harm.” If the view of the owner—that is, the owner of the planting and building—conflicts with that of the claimant of pre-emption, the claimant says, “I want to take them, so assess their value and charge it to me.” But their owner says, “I want to take them. I have another place, and I will take this planting and replant it there.” The owner’s view is upheld, because it is his property.

However, the author, may Allah have mercy on him, qualified this by saying, “without causing harm.” This condition is essential: if there is harm, it is not permissible to remove harm by securing a benefit. Taking them is beneficial to their owner, but it harms the owner of the land. It is well known that warding off harms takes precedence over procuring benefits, especially when we know that their owner—that is, the purchaser—wishes to take the planting and building merely to cause harm, not for any benefit. This may occur: although he may derive no benefit from it, he says, “I want to demolish the building, even though I now know that I will not benefit from it.”