Section

Either party may terminate a ʿāriyah (loan for use) whenever he wishes, except when the land was lent for burial; in that case the lender may not reclaim it until the traces of the deceased have completely faded.

If the land was lent for building or for planting trees without a specified term and the lender then withdraws, the ruling is as follows. If it had been stipulated at the outset that dismantling or uprooting would be carried out free of charge, the borrower must remove what he has put up at his own expense. Otherwise, should the borrower choose removal, he may do so and—according to the prevalent view—he need not level the ground afterwards; yet I hold the sounder opinion to be that he is obliged to level it, and Allah knows best.

If the borrower does not opt for removal, it may not be carried out gratis. Instead, the lender is given a choice: he may either let the structure or trees remain in return for rent, or he may remove them and claim compensation for the resulting diminution in the value of the land. Some add a third option: that he may take ownership of them by paying their market value. If the lender declines to choose, removal is still not to be effected free of charge when the borrower offers rent—and, according to the sounder view, not even when he refuses to offer it. One opinion holds that the judge should sell the land together with what stands upon it and divide the proceeds between the two parties, but the stronger opinion is that the judge should leave them until they select one of the above options.

The lender may enter the property and benefit from it, whereas the borrower may not enter merely for sightseeing without permission. Entering for watering or necessary maintenance is, on the sounder view, permissible. Each party may sell what he owns, though some maintain that the borrower may not sell his share to a third party.

A time-limited ʿāriyah is judged in the same way as an open-ended one, though one opinion permits free removal when the lender retracts. If the land is lent for cultivation and the owner withdraws before the crop matures, the correct view is that the crop is left until harvest and that the owner is entitled to rent. If a fixed term was stipulated and the crop fails to ripen within it because the borrower delayed planting, it may be removed without compensation.

Should a flood carry seed onto another’s land and it germinate, the produce belongs to the owner of the seed, and the sounder view is that he is compelled to uproot it.

If someone rides an animal and says to its owner, “You lent it to me,” while the owner replies, “No, I hired it to you,” or if a landowner and cultivator dispute in the same way, the owner’s word is accepted according to the school’s established position. The same applies when one says, “You lent it to me,” and the owner responds, “Rather, you usurped it.”

When the article itself has perished, both parties agree that compensation is due; nevertheless, the sounder view is that liability is assessed according to its value on the day it was destroyed, not its highest market value, nor its value on the day it was taken. If the owner claims an amount higher than this, he must take an oath regarding the excess.