This study employs a jurisprudential and analytical approach to examine the "rights of nature in times of war" from the perspectives of both Sunni and Shia jurisprudence, specifically focusing on the ruling regarding damage to trees and crops during the Islamic state's cross-border armed conflicts with non-believers. The central question concerns the ruling on damaging nature during war in the absence of military necessity, and the extent to which such action is permissible when necessity arises.Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method and library research, the study investigates three viewpoints—prohibition, permissibility, and reprehensibility—regarding damage to trees in war, analyzing the arguments for each. An examination of verses190 and 205 of Surah Al-Baqarah and narrations from Abu Hamza al-Thumali, Muhammad ibn Humran, and Jamil ibn Darraj—alongside a critique of the arguments supporting the views of permissibility and reprehensibility—demonstrates that damaging trees and crops during war is impermissible in the absence of necessityor rational expediency.However, if such an action is necessary to save Muslim lives, avert danger, or secure victory,andno other means exist toachieve these goals, its permissibility is accepted tothe extent of that necessity.Thus,the preferred ruling is prohibition in the absence of necessity, and permissibility—limited to the required extentwhen military necessity exists.