remove it; because everything belongs to the person from whom it was usurped, so no one else has the right to dispose of it without his permission.
Section: The ruling regarding building on land is the same as the ruling regarding planting on it in all these details, except that it is inferred that if the landowner offers the value to the owner of the building, he is compelled to accept it if there is no valid purpose for the demolition; because demolition is foolishness. The first [view] is more correct, due to what al-Khallal narrated with his chain of transmission from al-Zuhri, from Urwah, from Aisha, who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Whoever builds on the lands of a people with their permission, he is entitled to the value, and whoever builds without their permission, he is entitled to the demolition" (10). And because that is an exchange, so he is not compelled to it. If the material is from the land's own soil and stones, the usurper does not have the right to demolish it, according to what we mentioned regarding planting.
Section: If he usurped a house, plastered it, and decorated it, and its owner demanded he remove it, and there is a purpose for its removal, he is obligated to remove it, and [pay for] the depreciation of its value if it has diminished. If there is no purpose in it, and the usurper gifted it to its owner, he is forced to accept it; because that is a quality of the house, so it is like the fulling of a garment. It is possible that he is not forced; because these are distinct entities, so they are in the position of goods. If the usurper demands to remove it and the landowner prevents him, and it has a value after being scraped off, then the usurper has the right to remove it, just as he has the right to remove his plants, regardless of whether the owner offered him its value or not. If it has no value, there are two views: one of them is that he has the right to remove it; because it is the substance of his property. The second is that he does not have the right; because it is foolishness that harms and does not benefit, so he is not forced to do it (11).
Section: If he usurped land and scraped off its soil, he is obligated to return and spread it as it was if the owner demands it and there is a valid purpose for it. If there is no purpose in it, is he forced to spread it?
(10) Reported by al-Bayhaqi, in: Chapter on whoever builds or plants on another's land, from the Book of Usurpation, al-Sunan al-Kubra 6/91. And Ibn Adi, in al-Kamil 5/1669. (11) In M, there is an addition: "And if the owner offered him its value so that he would leave it."
