He said: This person is a transgressor regarding the entire planting, so he is liable for the fair wage, like a usurper. It is for this reason that the owner of the land has the authority to prevent him from planting it, and has the authority to take it after he has planted it, upon paying his expenses. This differs from one who exceeds his right by a distinguishable excess, for he is not a transgressor regarding the entirety; he only transgressed by the excess alone. It is for this reason that the lessor does not have the authority to prevent him from the entirety. The parallel to these two issues is one who hires a room to place bushels of wheat in it, then leaves more than that in it; or one who hires it to place a quintal of cotton in it, then places a quintal of iron in it. In the first case, he is entitled to the specified wage and the wage for the excess, and in the second case, it is derived from the disagreement, similar to what we said in the issue of planting. The ruling for the lessee who plants something more harmful than what he hired it for is the ruling of the usurper; the owner of the land may prevent him initially due to the harm that would befall him. If he does plant it, the owner of the land is given the choice between leaving the crop for the wage or taking it and paying the expenses. If he did not know until the lessee harvested his crop, he is entitled only to the wage, as we mentioned in the chapter on usurpation.

Section: If one hires an animal for a distance, then travels a more difficult route, it is like the issue of planting. Two perspectives are derived regarding it. The analogy of the text reported from Ahmad is that he is entitled to the specified wage plus an increase, because the distance is not exclusive according to the view of our companions. The analogy of the statement of Abu Bakr is that he is entitled to the fair wage because the increase is not distinguishable and because he is a transgressor regarding the entirety, evidenced by the fact that the owner of the animal may prevent him from traveling that entire route, unlike one who traveled that route and went beyond it, for he only prevents him from the excess and nothing else. If one hires [an animal] to carry cotton but carries iron of equal weight, or to carry iron but carries cotton, he owes the fair wage here because the harm of one is different from the harm of the other. Therefore, it is not established that the load contains what was entitled by the lease contract plus an increase over it, unlike the issues preceding it. All other issues of hostility in leasing are to be measured against the issues we have mentioned regarding what is distinguishable, and as for that which is not distinguishable, each issue is appended to its counterpart.