Among them is that he is absent, so his agent divides it with him, or [the owner is] a minor, so his guardian divides it with him, and similar cases, and then the absent person returns or the minor reaches puberty and exercises the right of preemption. Similarly, if he were absent or a minor, and the purchaser petitioned the judge for a partition, who then partitioned it, and then the absent person arrived or the minor reached puberty and took it through preemption after the purchaser had planted and built upon it, then the purchaser has the right to remove his plants and buildings if he chooses to do so, because it is his property. Once he removes them, he is not obligated to level the excavation or compensate for the depreciation of the land. The Qadi mentioned this, and it is the school of al-Shafi'i, because he planted and built on his own property, and whatever depreciation occurred, it occurred within his property, and this is something to which no price corresponds. The apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's words is that he is liable for the depreciation resulting from the removal; this is because he stipulated in the removal of plants and buildings that there be no harm, and this is because it is a depreciation imposed on the property of another for the sake of reclaiming his own property, so he is obligated to guarantee it, just as if he had broken another's inkwell to extract his own coin from it. As for their statement that the depreciation occurred in his own property, it is not so; for the depreciation resulting from removal is in the property of the pre-emptor. As for the depreciation of the land resulting from the planting and building, he is not liable for it, for the reason they mentioned. If the purchaser does not choose removal, the pre-emptor has a choice between three things: abandoning the preemption, paying the value of the plants and buildings and thereby owning them along with the land, or removing the plants and buildings and guaranteeing the owner for whatever loss resulted from the removal. This is the position of al-Sha'bi, al-Awza'i, Ibn Abi Layla, Malik, al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, al-Batti, Sawwar, and Ishaq. Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, al-Thawri, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: "The purchaser is compelled to remove them and receives nothing; because he built on something that another was entitled to take, so he is like a usurper, and because he built on another's right without his permission, so he is like [one who builds on land that] is proven to be the entitlement of another." We have in our favor the statement of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: "There shall be no harm and no reciprocation of harm." The harm is not removed from both of them except through this [method], and because he built on his own property, which he lawfully acquired through sale, he should not be compelled to remove it in a way that causes harm, just as if it were not subject to preemption. They differ from the case they used for analogy, for in that case he built on someone else's property, and because it is...