the delivery of the right to its entitled recipient without it, through sale, so he is not compelled to remove it, like removing crops from land. It differs from trees, as they are not ruined by removal. The Qadi said: This is the apparent meaning of the words of Ahmad, and perhaps he derived that from the statement of Ahmad regarding crops. This is contrary to crops, because they have an endpoint they reach, and the owner of the land may take them for their cost, so he is not prevented from regaining his land immediately, unlike dye, for it has no endpoint other than the destruction of the garment, so it is more similar to trees in the land. The obligation of removal in the case of trees is not limited to what is not destroyed, for he is compelled to remove what is destroyed and what is not. The companions of al-Shafi'i have two views similar to these.

If the owner of the garment offers the value of the dye to the usurper so that he may own it, he is not compelled to accept it; because this is compelling him to sell his property, so he is not compelled to do so, just as if he offered him the value of the plantings. It is possible that he is compelled to do so if he does not remove it, by analogy to trees, building on land subject to pre-emption, lent property, and in usurped land if the usurper does not remove it; and because it is a matter through which the dispute is resolved, and one of them is rid of the other without harm, so he is compelled to do so, as we have mentioned. If the usurper offers the value of the garment to its owner so that he may own it, he is not compelled to do so, just as if the owner of the plantings offered the value of the land to its owner in these situations. If the usurper gifts the dye to the owner of the garment, is he required to accept it? There are two views: One is that he is required to; because the dye has become one of the qualities of the essence, so it is like an increase in quality in a forward sale (salam). The second is that he is not compelled; because the dye is an essence that can be separated, so he is not compelled to accept it. The apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi is that he is compelled; because he said regarding the dowry (sadaq): If it was a garment and he dyed it, and you offered him half of it dyed, he is required to accept it. If the owner wishes to sell the garment, and the usurper refuses, he has the right to sell it; because it is his property, so the usurper does not have the right to prevent him from selling his own property due to his transgression. If the usurper wishes to sell it, the owner is not compelled to sell it; because he