they are not obligated to level the excavation, nor pay compensation for the decrease, because they did so on the land of the insolvent person before the seller reclaimed it; therefore, they do not guarantee the decrease, just as if the insolvent person had removed it before his insolvency. As for if the insolvent person and the creditors refuse to remove it, they have the right to do so, and they are not forced to do it, because it is planting done by right. The implication of his saying, peace be upon him: "There is no right for an unjust root," is that if he is not unjust, then he has a right. If the seller offers the value of the plants and the structure so that the whole thing belongs to him, or says: "I will remove it and compensate for the resulting decrease," then if we say: "He has the right of reclamation before removal," he may do so, because the structure and plants were placed on his property for another by right, so he is entitled to take them by paying their value, or removing them and compensating for their decrease, just like a pre-emptor (shafi') when he takes land that contains plants and structures belonging to the buyer, or a lender when he reclaims his land after the borrower has planted in it. And if we say: "He does not have the right of reclamation before removal," he does not have that right, because the insolvent person's building and planting was on his own property, so he cannot be forced to sell it to this seller, nor to remove it, just as if he had not reclaimed the land. As for if the seller refuses to offer such, the right of reclamation lapses. This is the opinion of Ibn Hamid and one of the two views of the companions of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi said: It is possible that he has the right of reclamation, and this is the second opinion of al-Shafi'i, because he has found his specific property, and the property of the buyer is in it by way of subservience, so that does not prevent him from reclaiming it, like a garment if the buyer dyes it. Our view is that he did not find his property in a state that enables him to take it separated from other than it, so he may not take it, like a stone in a structure or nails in a door; and because that entails harm to the buyer and the creditors, and harm is not removed by harm; and because the dispute and litigation are not ended by reclamation here, unlike when he finds it unoccupied by anything. As for the garment if he dyes it, we do not concede that he has the right of reclamation, so it is like our issue; and if we did concede, the difference between them is from two aspects: one of them is that the dye disperses into the fabric, so it becomes like an attribute of it, unlike the structure and plants, for they are distinct entities and a basis in themselves. The second is that the garment is not intended for permanence,