Check this out, a just-published unsigned student piece: Note, "Taking Old Ladies' Homes: A Comparative Exploration of Eminent Domain in Islamic Law," 138 Harv. L. Rev. 841 (2025).
Not that we have any background to be able to evaluate the author's assertions, but at the very least, the piece is very interesting (you learn stuff!), and does reach the conclusion that forced acquisitions are not absolutely necessary to "develop[] advanced built environments and economic systems[.]" See id. at 862 ("It is not enough to assume that any society, or indeed any modern society, requires a particular form of eminent domain or the eminent domain power itself.").
Here's a summary.
This Note is therefore likely the first exploration of premodern Islamic discourses and practices of “eminent domain.” It will argue three things about forced appropriation of property for public purposes in premodern Islamic law: First, that unlike in Anglo-American law, such appropriations were not justified on the basis of any inherent sovereign attributes with regard to property, but rather on wider doctrines of the limits of property rights; second, that the permissibility of takings was more varied and less unanimous than contemporary Arabic sources imply; and third, that the allowance of compulsory sale for public purposes was generally narrower in scope and required a higher level of public necessity than did eminent domain law. Finally, this Note will examine common tensions and anxieties that unite government takings across history and legal traditions: from public needs to individual rights to distributive justice concerns. It makes the overarching point, therefore, that while many communities will face the challenge of reconciling these conflicting interests, the Anglo-American practice of eminent domain is just one answer to these questions and may have surprising implications.
Worth a look.