its harm is permanent, so he is compelled to remove it, like the branches of a tree spreading into the airspace of another's property. If a flood carries a plot of land with its trees, and it sprouts on another's land as it was, it belongs to its owner, and he is compelled to remove it, as we have mentioned. In all these cases, if the owner of the transferred land [or trees] (56) or crop leaves that for the owner of the land to which it transferred, he is not obligated to move it, nor pay rent, nor anything else; because it occurred without his negligence or aggression, and the choice lies with the owner of the land occupied by it: if he wishes, he may take it for himself, and if he wishes, he may remove it.

Section: If the owner of an animal and its rider differ, and the rider says: "It is a loan (ariya)," and the owner says: "Rather, you rented it (57)," then if the animal still exists [and has not diminished] (58), it cannot be but that the disagreement occurred immediately after the contract, or after a period had passed for which there is a standard rent. If it was immediately after the contract, the statement is that of the rider; because the principle is the absence of a lease contract, and the freedom of the rider's liability from it, so he takes an oath, and returns the animal to its owner; because it is a loan. Likewise, if the owner claims it is a loan, and the rider says: "Rather, I rented it," the statement is that of the owner, along with his oath; for the reason we mentioned. If the disagreement occurred after a period had passed for which there is a standard rent, and the owner claims a lease, then the statement is his, along with his oath. This was narrated from Malik. The scholars of opinion (ahl al-ra'y) said: The statement is that of the rider. This is the explicit text of al-Shafi'i; because they both agreed that the benefits have expired while in the possession of the rider, and the owner claims compensation for them, and the principle is the absence of its obligation and the freedom of the rider's liability from it, so the statement is his. Our position is that they disagreed on the manner in which the benefits transferred to the possession of the rider, so the statement is that of the owner, just as if they disagreed regarding an object, and the owner said: "I sold it to you," and the other said: "You gifted it to me." Furthermore, benefits are treated like physical objects in terms of ownership and contracting upon them, and if they disagreed regarding the objects, the statement would be that of the owner; thus it is here. And what