Distinction between the ruling on fruit ('Thamarah') and the ruling on standing crops ('Zar'c') in usurpation cases

Primary text

The established ruling (that the fruit belongs to the planter/usurper) is stronger than the view attributing it to the landowner. This is because Ahmad ibn Hanbal explicitly stated that the landowner taking the standing crops contradicts proper analogy (*Qiyas*) and is only accepted due to specific textual evidence (tradition), meaning the ruling should be restricted to standing crops and not extended to fruit. Fruit differs from standing crops in two respects: First, standing crops are considered growth of the land itself, thus belonging to the landowner, whereas fruit is growth of the tree, belonging to the owner of the tree (the planter). Second, the landowner recovering standing crops is obligated to compensate the planter for the seed and expenses, which cannot be accurately mirrored or compensated for concerning fruit.