the value of the object. But if we say: it is upon the lender, then it is like the rent, according to what we have explained.

Section: If a flood carries a man's seeds from his land to another's land, and it sprouts there, he is not compelled to remove it. Some of the followers of al-Shafi'i said, in one of the two views: He is compelled to do so if the owner of the land demands it of him; because his property has ended up in another's property without his permission, so it is similar to when the branches of his tree spread into the airspace of his neighbor's property. Our position is that removing it is the destruction of wealth for its owner (54), and no negligence was committed by him, nor is the harm [inflicted] permanent, so he is not compelled to do so, just as if his animal ended up in another's house in a way that it cannot be removed except by tearing down a wall or killing it, for we would not compel him to kill it. It differs from the branches of a tree, for the harm of that is permanent, and the extent of the space it occupies in the air is unknown, so he would be required to pay its rent. Once this is established, it shall remain on the land until the time of its harvest for its equivalent rent (ujrat al-mithl). Al-Qadi said: He owes no rent; because it ended up on another's land without his negligence, so it is similar to if his animal spent the night on a person's land without his negligence. This is far-fetched; because compelling him to keep a crop he did not authorize, [on his land] (55), without rent or benefit, is causing him harm and occupying his property without his choice, without compensation, so it is not permissible, just as if he wanted to keep his beast in another's house for a year. It differs from its spending the night; for the owner cannot be compelled to [allow] that, and he is not prevented from removing it, so if he leaves it by his own choice, he is content with it, unlike our case. The crop belongs to the owner of the seeds; because it is from the essence of his wealth. It is possible that the ruling for this crop is the same as the ruling for the crop of a usurper, as we will mention; because it ended up on his land without his permission, so it is similar to if the owner had planted it. The first [view] is more appropriate; because this occurred without aggression, and it is possible to satisfy the right of the land owner by paying the rent to him. If the owner of the seeds wishes to remove it, he may do so, and he is responsible for leveling the excavation and [compensating for] whatever the land has diminished in value; because he introduced a deficiency to the property of another for the betterment of his own property, so he is like the borrower. As for if the flood carried pits (nawa), and they sprouted as trees on another's land, such as olives, palms, and the like, it belongs to the owner of the pits; because it is from the growth of his property, so it is like the crop, and he is compelled to remove it here; because