and (third) he discovers the defect and returns them after the fruit has ripened.

In the third situation, where the date palms bear pollinated fruit on the day of purchase and the buyer stipulates that it be included in the sale, there are two possibilities: (first) he discovers the defect and returns them while the fruit remains unripe; and (second) he discovers the defect and returns them after the fruit has ripened.

In the fourth situation, where he purchases the date palms together with their fruit after it has ripened, there is only one case: he discovers the defect before or after harvesting, both being treated alike. These are ten cases: four in the first situation, three in the second, two in the third, and one in the fourth. In each case, four circumstances besides return for a defect may arise, removing the property from its owner’s possession by judicial ruling: rescission of an invalid sale, an established claim of title by a third party, pre-emption, and insolvency. I shall explain the rules governing return for a defect in these cases, then return to the other four circumstances and explain the applicable rulings, Allah willing. My success is only through Allah.

As for the first case in the first situation—where he purchases date palms bearing no fruit and discovers a defect before they begin to bear fruit—he may return them on that account if he wishes, but he cannot recover the expenses of watering and tending them, if he has done so. It has also been said that, according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, he may recover these expenses. This should depend on his differing views as to whether return for a defect constitutes rescission of the original sale or a new sale.

As for the second case in the first situation—where he purchases date palms bearing no fruit, then waters and tends them until they bear fruit, and discovers a defect before the fruit is pollinated—he may return them for the defect and recover the expenses of watering and tending them according to Ibn al-Qāsim and Ashhab, but not according to Ibn al-Mājishūn and Sahnūn.

Section

If he harvests the fruit in this situation, I recall no explicit ruling on the matter from our jurists. In my view, reasoning from their principles requires that this be treated as an impediment to an unconditional return, because harvesting the fruit at this stage damages the trees themselves and diminishes their value. He would therefore have the choice of returning them and compensating for their depreciation, or keeping them and recovering an allowance for the defect.

As for the third case in the first situation—where he purchases date palms bearing no fruit and discovers the defect after pollination—he returns them together with their fruit and recovers the expenses of watering and tending them according to Ibn al-Qāsim and Ashhab, contrary to Ibn al-Mājishūn and Sahnūn. This is the position of Mālik and his companions—may Allah Most High have mercy on them. I know of no explicit disagreement among them that he returns the trees together with their fruit. Yet analogy would require