stability for the owner of the land or crops, or whether it does not cause harm. The ruling regarding cutting them and reconciling over them is the same as the ruling regarding the branches, except that roots have no fruit. If they agree that what grows from its roots is for the owner of the land, or a known portion of it, then it is like the reconciliation over the fruit that we have mentioned. According to our view, if they have reconciled upon this and a period passes, then the owner of the tree refuses to hand over its growth to the owner of the land, then he owes the "equivalent wage" (ajr al-mithl), because he only left it in his land for this purpose. So when he did not deliver it to him, he returned to [the claim for] the equivalent wage, just as if he had offered it for compensation and did not deliver it to him. Likewise is the ruling for one whose wall leans into the airspace of another's property, or whose beams slip into another's property; the ruling regarding it is in accordance with what we have mentioned.

Section: If he reconciles with him regarding a deferred debt by [paying] a part of it immediately, it is not permissible. Zayd ibn Thabit, Ibn Umar—who said: "Umar forbade selling a physical commodity (ayn) for a debt (dayn)"—Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Qasim, Salim, al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, Malik, al-Shafi'i, al-Thawri, Ibn Uyaynah, Hushaym, Abu Hanifah, and Ishaq all disliked it. It has been narrated from [Ibn Abbas], al-Nakha'i, and Ibn Sirin that there is no harm in it. From al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin, it is reported that they saw no harm in [taking] trade goods in exchange for one's right before its due date; because they were trading trade goods for what is held in liability (dhimma), so it is valid, as if he purchased it for its equivalent price. Perhaps Ibn Sirin argues that early payment is permissible and [partial] waiver is in itself permissible, so combining them is permissible, as if they had done so without prior collusion regarding it. Our argument is that he is offering the amount he is waiving as compensation for the acceleration of what is in his liability, and selling [to accelerate] maturity or [to defer it] is not permissible, just as it is not permissible for him to give him ten [dirhams] immediately in exchange for twenty deferred. And because he is selling him ten for twenty, it is not permissible, as if it were defective. It differs from the case where it happens without collusion or a contract, because each of them is a volunteer, offering his right without