—the crop belongs to the cultivator, while the one who reclaims the land is entitled to its rent. If the planting was done wrongfully, the crop is to be uprooted so long as the reclamation occurs within the planting season; if trees were planted, the trees must likewise be removed. The two parties may, however, arrive at a mutual settlement. Should the land be reclaimed outside the planting season, the owner is limited to the rent—although some have held that the crop must be uprooted in every case. All of this is reported from Mālik. The upshot of his school is that any crop sown under a colorable doubt is not uprooted, but rent is due, whereas whatever is sown or planted by sheer usurpation—without any such doubt—must always be removed, crop and trees alike.

Whoever buys a female slave, impregnates her, and then her original owner reclaims her—there are two narrations from Mālik. The first is that the owner retakes the slave-girl and the value of her child from the man who slept with her, valued on the day judgment is rendered in the reclamation suit. The second narration is that the owner takes from that man only the value of the slave-girl as of the day she passed out of his possession while pregnant; she thereby becomes an umm walad (a slave-concubine who has borne a child) for the buyer, and the owner has no claim to the child. Some say the owner is entitled only to her value on the day she was first slept with, but the first view is stronger. A third opinion states that he takes her value at the time of reclamation together with the entire value of her child; yet the first opinion is the soundest and the one most widely accepted among the jurists.

The same ruling applies when a slave-girl falsely claims her own freedom, a man marries her on that basis, and she bears him a child: if her master later reclaims her, the case is decided exactly as in the preceding question according to both narrations.