and the land is planted, the crop belongs to the purchaser once it has emerged. But if it consists of seeds buried in the ground, it follows the land. Once it has emerged, however, it belongs to the purchaser, because it has become visible and distinct, and he has become attached to it. It therefore remains in the land until the harvest.

His statement, “and visible fruit”: this too belongs to the purchaser, even if it has not been pollinated. In this case, they did not distinguish between pollinated and unpollinated fruit; rather, they regarded visible fruit as a separable increase.

But the correct view is that, if it has not been pollinated, it follows the property, by analogy with a sale. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever sells date palms after they have been pollinated, their fruit belongs to the one who sold them.” (1)

It is understood from the author’s statement, “separable increase,” that inseparable increase follows the property, and that the purchaser has no entitlement to it. For example, he purchases Zayd’s share in some date palms while the palms are still young saplings. The co-owner remains unaware that his partner has sold his share, and the palms grow and become large. Does this increase belong to the purchaser, or does he have no right to it? The apparent meaning of the author’s words indicates that it does not belong to him, because it is an inseparable increase—even though the purchaser has laboured over it and incurred expense in improving and ploughing the land and bringing water to it. In short, he has spent on it, yet they still say that he has no entitlement, because this is inseparable increase and therefore follows the property.

But the preponderant view—without doubt—is that inseparable increase, like separable increase, belongs to the one to whom ownership has passed; there is no difference. This is