then its fruit belongs to the one who sold it.” (1) Just as fruit and crops do not follow the property in a sale, likewise they do not follow it when the right of pre-emption is exercised; rather, they belong to the one who purchased it. Moreover, the period of crops and fruit does not last long, unlike planted trees and buildings, whose duration is lengthy.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that there is no difference whether, at the time of sale, the property bore fruit or contained crops, or whether the fruit and crops appeared afterward. The correct view, however, is that if the fruit existed at the time of sale and the co-owner exercises his right of pre-emption while the fruit is still present, it follows the property. The same applies to crops, for the following reasons:

First: fruit is subsidiary to the planted trees, and trees and crops are subsidiary to the land; and what is not established independently may be established as a consequence.

Second: some harm, even if slight, may result. Evidence for this is that the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited the sale of fruit until its soundness becomes apparent, and the sale of grain until it hardens, (2) lest dispute and contention arise between the seller and the buyer.

Third: if we exclude fruit and crops from the right of pre-emption, this results in splitting the co-owner’s share, and he may be harmed by that. Even the buyer may be harmed, for he may say: “If I do not obtain the share in its entirety, then I do not...”