No Legitimate Right Arises from a Root Planted by an Oppressor: A Comparative Study of Islamic Property Legitimacy and Adverse Possession

This article undertakes the first systematic comparison between the Prophetic legal maxim laysa li-ʿirq ẓālim ḥaqq “No legitimate right arises from a root planted by an oppressor” and the Anglo-American doctrine of adverse possession. I begin by analyzing the ḥadīth ’s chain of transmission and language—particularly the meanings of ʿirq (root) and ẓālim (oppressor)—to determine its jurisprudential authority. I distill from classical Islamic law three necessary conditions for identifying “a root planted by an oppressor”: absence of a valid legal entitlement ( sabab al-milk ), lack of the original owner’s consent, and the intent to claim permanence. Drawing on the Sunni doctrine, I contrast this framework with the development and doctrinal structure of adverse possession in Anglo-American common law, with its emphasis on continuous, hostile, and overt occupation. I argue that whereas secular legal systems convert time-based possession into legal title, Islamic law insists on a normative framework anchored in justice, consent, and evidentiary proof. I conclude by asserting the coherence and normative force of Islamic property doctrine and proposing new empirical avenues for exploring how legitimacy underpins durable property systems.