for the other party to remove his date palms." He said: "I saw them being struck at their roots with axes, and they were tall date palms." (5) This is because he occupied the property of another with his own property, which has no sanctity in itself, without the owner's permission; thus, he is obligated to clear it, just as if he had placed goods inside it. When he removes them, he is obligated to level the excavation and return the land to its previous state, because this is damage caused by his action on another's property, so he is obligated to rectify it. If the landowner wishes to take the trees and the building without compensation, he does not have the right to do so, because it is the specific property of the usurper; therefore, the landowner does not own it, just as if he had placed furniture or livestock on it. If he demands to take it by paying its value, and its owner refuses except to remove it, he has the right to remove it; because it is (6) his property, so he has the right to move it. He cannot be forced to accept the value, because it is an exchange, and he cannot be forced into it. If they agree to compensate him for it with the value or otherwise, it is permissible; because the right belongs to both of them, so what they agree upon is permissible. If the usurper gifts the plants and the building to the landowner to be relieved of their removal, and the owner accepts, it is permissible. If he refuses to accept, and there is a valid purpose in their removal [he is not forced to accept it; due to what has preceded. And if there is no valid purpose in it] (7) it is possible that he may be forced to accept it, because it involves ending a dispute without any purpose being missed. It is also possible that he may not be forced, because it involves compelling him to a contract where consent is considered. If he usurped land and plants from one man, and he planted them in it (8), then everything belongs to the landowner. If the owner demands he remove them, and there is a purpose in their removal, he is forced to remove them; because he caused him to miss a intended purpose for the land, so he is held to returning it to what it was, and he is responsible for leveling the land, its depreciation, and the depreciation of the plants, as we have mentioned. If there is no purpose in their removal, he is not forced to remove them; because it is foolishness, and he cannot be forced into foolishness. It is said: He is forced; because the owner has authority over his property, and the usurper does not. If the usurper wishes to remove them and the owner prevents him (9), he does not have the right to