Section: If the crop is of the type whose roots remain in the ground and is harvested time after time, such as alfalfa and mint, it is possible that its ruling is [what we have mentioned, because it falls under the general category of crops, as it does not have strong branches, so it resembles wheat and barley. It is also possible that its ruling is] (10) the same as that of planting; because its root remains (11) and its harvesting is repeated, and because analogy requires that for every crop there be a ruling similar to that of planting. It was only abandoned in cases where its duration is short due to the tradition (athar), so in other cases, it remains in accordance with the requirement of analogy.

Section: If one usurps land and plants it, and it bears fruit, and its owner discovers it after the usurper has taken its fruit, then it belongs to him. If he discovers it while the fruit is still on it, the same applies; because it is the fruit of his tree, so it belongs to him, just as if it were in his own land, and because it is the growth of a substance judged to be for the usurper, so it belongs to him, just like its branches, leaves, milk of the sheep, and its offspring. Al-Qadi said: It belongs to the owner of the land if he discovers it while it is still in the state of being planted; because Ahmad said, in the narration of Ali ibn Sa'id: If one usurps land and plants it, the growth belongs to the owner of the land. Al-Qadi said: And he is liable for the expenses that the planter spent on the fruit; because the fruit is in the same meaning as the crop, so it was (12) for the owner of the land if he discovers it still existing in it, like the crop. The first (view) is more correct; because Ahmad has explicitly stated that the land owner taking the crop is something that does not accord with analogy, and he only adopted it due to the tradition, so the ruling is specific to it and is not extended to other things. Furthermore, the fruit differs from the crop in two respects: first, the crop is the growth of the land, so it belongs to its owner, while the fruit is the growth of the tree, so it belongs to its owner. Second, he returns the substitute for the crop he (13) took, such as the seed from which the crop grew, along with what he spent on it, and such a thing is not possible in the case of fruit.

Section: If one usurps a tree and it bears fruit, the fruit belongs to the owner of the tree, without any disagreement that we are aware of; because it is the growth of his property, and because the tree is the substance of his property that has grown and increased, so it resembles the case where its branches grow longer. And he is responsible for...