and exceeded it. Regarding planting, he did not plant what the contract stipulated. It is for this reason that Abu Bakr provided the reasoning that he deviated from what was contracted, but this statement is not valid in the issue of the load, for he indeed carried what was contracted and exceeded it. Rather, appending this issue to the case where one hires for a distance and exceeds it is more appropriate, and its resemblance to it is stronger. Because in the case of the load, he is a transgressor only by the excess, whereas in the case of planting, he is a transgressor regarding the entire planting, so he resembles a usurper (ghasib). As for the issue of planting where one hires land to plant [4] barley but plants wheat, Ahmad has explicitly stated this in the report of 'Abd Allah, saying: He observes the decrease that befalls the land between wheat and barley, and gives it to the owner of the land. He thus rendered this issue like the two issues of al-Khiraqi, in necessitating the specified wage and the fair wage for the excess [5]. The justification for this is that when he specified barley, it did not become exclusive (ta'ayyun), and the contract did not attach to its essence, as previously mentioned. This is why we said: He is permitted to plant its equivalent, or what is less damaging than it. So, when he plants wheat, he has fulfilled his right and more, similar to if he had hired it to a place and exceeded it. Abu Bakr said: He owes the fair wage (ajr al-mithl). He justified it by stating that he deviated from what was contracted, for wheat is not barley plus an excess. This holds even if we say: He has fulfilled what was contracted and more, except that the excess is not distinguishable, unlike the two issues of al-Khiraqi. Al-Shafi'i said: The lessor [6] is given the choice between taking the rent plus what the land has decreased in excess of what barley would have decreased it, or taking the fair rental value for the entirety; because this issue has taken on a resemblance to two foundational principles: First, when one rides an animal and exceeds the stipulated [7] distance, because he fulfilled what was contracted and more. Second, when one rents land and plants something else, because he planted while being a transgressor; for this reason, he is given the choice between the two. Also, because a cause was found requiring each of the two rulings, and it is impossible to combine them, so he is entitled to the greater of them, and its selection is delegated to the party entitled to the right, similar to intentional homicide. Those who support Abu Bakr,