The land shall be sold with its plants, and each of them shall be given the value of their share. It is asked: "How much is the value of the land unplanted and unbuilt upon?" If they say: "Ten," we say: "And how much is its value planted and built upon?" If they say: "Fifteen," we say: "The lender gets two-thirds of the price, and the borrower gets one-third of it." If they refrain from selling, they remain in their current state. The lender may enter his land as he wishes and utilize it in ways that do not harm the plants or the building, and he shall not utilize the plants and the building themselves. The owner of the plants and building does not have the right to enter except for a need, such as watering or tending to the fruit; because permission for planting is permission for what is conducive to its well-being, gathering its fruits, and watering it. He does not have the right to enter for recreation, for the lender has retracted the permission granted to him. Each of them has the right to sell the part of the property belonging to them individually, and the buyer shall have the same rights as the seller. Some of the Shafi'i scholars said: "The borrower does not have the right to sell the trees; because his ownership of them is not stable, evidenced by the fact that the lender may take them whenever he wishes by paying their value." We reply: "The lack of stability does not prevent their sale, evidenced by the shuf'a (preemption) portion and the dowry (sadaq) before consummation." In all these issues, whenever the lender has stipulated upon the borrower to remove [the plants] upon his retraction, and [the borrower] returns the loan unencumbered, he is obligated to do so; because the Muslims are bound by their conditions, and because the loan is restricted and not absolute, so it does not cover anything beyond what was restricted; because the borrower entered into the loan agreeing to bear the harm incurred by the removal, and the owner of the land is not liable for the depreciation. We are not aware of any disagreement regarding this. As for the leveling of the pits resulting from the removal, [if it was stipulated upon him, it is mandatory as we have mentioned; otherwise, it is not mandatory; because he consented to the harm of removal] (50) of the pits and the like, when he stipulated the removal. Our scholars did not mention any rent upon the borrower in any of these issues, except when he borrowed land for cultivation and planted it, then the lender retracted it before the crop was complete; in that case, the equivalent rent (ujrat al-mithl) is due upon him from the time the lender retracted; because the fundamental rule is the permissibility of retraction, and [the borrower] was only prevented from removing [the crop] due to the harm involved. Thus, paying the rent combines both rights. The same ruling may be extrapolated to other issues due to the existence of this meaning therein. It is also possible that rent is not obligatory in any of the cases; because the ruling of the loan remains therein, as it became binding due to the harm incurred by its dissolution, and a loan implies utilization without compensation.