what we have mentioned. The second situation is that its remaining there is without negligence, such as if he plants a crop that customarily finishes within the duration, but it is delayed due to cold or other factors. In this case, it is binding upon the lessor to leave it until it finishes, and he is entitled to the specified amount and the fair rental value for the excess time. This is one of the two views among the followers of Al-Shafi'i. The second view is that they said: He is obligated to remove it; because the duration was set for the removal of the crop, so it is necessary to act according to its requirement, and negligence has occurred on his part because he could have exercised caution within the duration, but did not. As for us, the crop was placed in the land of another with his permission, without negligence, so leaving it is required, just as if he had lent him land and he planted it, then the owner retracted it before the completion of the crop. Their statement that he is negligent is incorrect, because this duration is one in which it is customary for the crop to reach completion, and in extending the duration there is a loss of additional rent without benefit, and wasting a certain increase to obtain a conjectural thing contrary to custom is what constitutes negligence, so leaving it was not negligence. Whenever the lessee intends to plant something for which the like does not reach maturity within the duration of the lease, the owner may prevent him; because it is a cause for the existence of his crop in his land without right, so he has the authority to prevent him from it. If he plants [it anyway], he does not have the right to demand its removal before the duration [expires]; because it is in land whose benefit he owns, and because he does not own that [right of removal] after the duration, so he is all the more precluded from it before it. Whoever obligates him to cut it after the duration says: If there is no alternative to demanding the removal, then it should be at the time of the duration at which he deserves the delivery of it to the lessor cleared.

Section: If one rents the land for cultivation for a duration in which it will not reach completion, such as if he rents it for five months for a crop that only reaches completion in a year, we must look: if he stipulates clearing it upon the expiration of the duration and removing it from it, it is valid; because this does not lead to an increase beyond his duration, and he may have a purpose in that, for taking it as fodder or otherwise, and he is bound by what he has committed to. If he makes the contract absolute and stipulates nothing, it is possible that it is valid; because benefiting from the crop within this duration is possible, and it is possible that if it is possible for him to benefit