the ruling on separating them.

For this reason, according to Ahmad and most jurists, when partition is impossible, one co-owner must join the other in selling the jointly owned property, or in leasing it if what they jointly own is a right of use. This is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Whoever frees his share in a slave and possesses enough wealth to cover the slave’s price must have the slave assessed at a fair value and pay his co-owners their shares, whereupon the slave becomes entirely free at his expense. Otherwise, only the share he has freed becomes free.”

Both al-Bukhārī and Muslim recorded this in their Sahīh collections. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, thus ordered that the entire slave be valued and that the co-owner be given his share of that value. It is well known that the value of his share sold separately is less than his proportion of the value of the whole. It follows that his entitlement is to half of the half-share. If he is entitled to this through emancipation, then he is all the more entitled to it in other cases of destruction of property. What is due as compensation for destruction is only what would be due in an exchange. It follows that he is entitled, through an exchange, to half the value, and this can only be obtained by selling the whole. The property itself must therefore be divided whenever division causes no harm; if it would cause harm, its value is divided instead.

If we require a co-owner to sell his share because separating the shares would diminish the value of his partner’s share, then it is all the more appropriate to permit the sale of two things together when separating them would cause harm. Likewise, a ewe may be sold together with the milk in her udder, even though the two could be separated by milking and the milk could not permissibly be sold on its own.

On this principle, this is permissible whenever the trees are accompanied by a benefit sought for its own sake