which he sold. When he removes them, he must level the excavations because this is a loss inflicted upon the property of another without his permission. The same applies if he removes them before the expiration of the duration here, and in the case that preceded it, because the owner did not grant permission for the removal before the time, and because he acted upon the land in a manner that diminished it, which the lease contract did not entail. If he refuses to remove them, he cannot be forced to do so unless the owner guarantees him the compensation for the depreciation of his plants, in which case he is forced. This is the opinion of al-Shafi’i. Abu Hanifah and Malik said: He must remove them without the owner guaranteeing any compensation for the depreciation, because specifying the duration in a lease entails vacating the property upon its expiration, just as if he had leased it for cultivation. Our evidence is the statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "There is no right for a wrongful vein" (root/plant). The implication is that what is not wrongful has a right, and this is not wrongful. Furthermore, he planted with the permission of the owner, and he did not stipulate their removal, so he cannot be forced to remove them without compensation for the depreciation, just as if he had borrowed land from him for planting for a duration, then he revoked it before its expiration. This differs from crops, as crops do not entail perpetuity. If it is said: If making the contract absolute regarding planting entails perpetuity, then the stipulation of removal contradicts the requirement of the contract and should therefore invalidate it. We respond: It only entails perpetuity in the sense that the custom regarding planting is for it to remain, so if it is made absolute, it is interpreted according to custom; but if he stipulates the opposite, it is permissible, just as if he sold for something other than the local currency, or stipulated a condition in a lease that contradicts custom. Once this is established, the owner of the land is given the choice between three things: first, that he pays the value of the plants and structures, thus owning them along with his land; second, that he removes the plants and structures and guarantees the indemnity for their depreciation; and third, that he allows the plants and structures to remain and takes the fair rental value from him. This is the opinion of al-Shafi’i. Malik said: He is given the choice between paying its value to own it, demanding its removal without compensation, or leaving it, in which case they become partners. This is not correct because the plants are the property of the planter, for which no substitute has been given to him, and he did not consent to the loss of his ownership [so it does not cease], like other plants. If they agree to sell the plants and structures to the owner, it is permissible. If he sells them