Once this is established, whenever the owner is content to leave the crop for the usurper, he may take rent for the land from him; this is because he occupied the usurped property with his own wealth, so its owner has the right to take rent for it, just as if he had left food or stones in a house which would require a period of time to move. If he prefers to take the crop, he may do so, just as the person entitled to pre-emption (shuf'a) is entitled to take the trees of the purchaser at their value. There are two narrations regarding what is returned to the usurper: The first is the value (6) of the crop, because it is a substitute for the crop, so it is estimated at its value, just as if he had destroyed it. And because the crop belongs to the usurper until the owner reclaims it from him, as evidenced by the fact that if he took it before the owner reclaimed it, it would be his property; if it were not his property, he would not own it by taking it. Thus, the owner taking it constitutes an act of acquisition by him, unless he compensates him, so it must be at its value, just as if he had taken the portion (7) subject to pre-emption. The usurper is liable for the rent of the land until the time of handing over the crop, because the crop was judged to be his, and he occupied another's land with it. The second narration is that he returns to the usurper what he spent on the seed (8) and the expenses of the crop for plowing, irrigation, and other things. This is what Al-Qadi mentioned. It is (9) the apparent meaning of Al-Khiraqi's statement and the apparent meaning of the Hadith, due to his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: "He is liable for its expenses." The value of a thing is not called expenses for it. The Hadith is based on this issue; for Ahmad only adopted this ruling (7) out of preference (istihsan), contrary to analogy (qiyas). The analogy is that the crop belongs to the owner of the seed because it is the growth of the substance of his property, so it resembles the case where one usurps a hen and it hatches eggs of his, or food and he feeds it to animals of his; the growth would be his. Ahmad explicitly stated this, saying: "This is something that does not accord with analogy; I prefer that he pay him his expenses, due to the tradition (athar)." Therefore, we assigned it to the usurper if the land is deemed entitled after the usurper has taken it. Since the action is based on the Hadith, its implied meaning must be followed.