If part of the date-palms has been pollinated while part has not, does the un-pollinated portion follow the pollinated portion, or does it not?

As far as I can ascertain, the jurists agree that when fruit is sold after the season of pollination has begun—even though no pollination has yet taken place—its legal status is the same as that of pollinated fruit.

Second Issue: Their disagreement over the sale of a slave’s property

The scholars differed concerning a slave’s belongings: do they accompany him in both sale and manumission? Three opinions are reported.

1. His property, whether in sale or manumission—and likewise when he is under a manumission contract—belongs to his master. This is the view of al-Shāfiʿī and the scholars of Kūfah.

2. His property follows him in both sale and manumission. This is the position of Dāwūd and Abū Thawr.

3. It follows him in manumission but not in sale, unless the purchaser stipulates it. This is the opinion of Mālik and al-Layth.

Those who hold that, in a sale, the property remains the master’s unless the buyer stipulates otherwise cite the well-known ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar, in which the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said:

“Whoever sells a slave who owns property, that property belongs to the seller unless the purchaser stipulates it.”

Those who extend this ruling to manumission do so by analogy with sale.

Mālik states in the Muwaṭṭaʾ: “The settled practice among us is that if the buyer stipulates the slave’s property—whether it is cash, merchandise, or a debt—it becomes his.” He also reports that the Prophet—peace be upon him—said:

“Whoever emancipates a slave-boy, his property is his, unless his master makes an exception.”

According to Mālik, it is permissible to purchase the slave together with his property for silver dirhams even if that property itself consists of dirhams or includes dirhams.

Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī dissent when the slave’s property is cash, saying: The slave and his property are like two distinct items being sold; only what is permissible in ordinary sales is permissible here.

Mālik’s disciples disagreed over whether the buyer may stipulate only part of the slave’s property in the contract of sale. Ibn al-Qāsim held it impermissible; Ashhab held it permissible. Others drew a distinction: if the price paid for the slave is tangible property (ʿayn) and there is tangible property among the slave’s possessions, it is not permissible, because it would involve bartering cash for goods and cash. But if the price is merchandise, or there is no cash among the slave’s property, it is permissible.

Ibn al-Qāsim’s rationale for prohibiting a partial stipulation is his analogy with the pollinated fruit of date-palms; Ashhab’s rationale for allowing it is to liken the part to the whole. There are many other unaddressed questions in this chapter that lie outside our present purpose.

Among their well-known issues here is the matter of additions or deductions made—by mutual consent—in the price on which the sale was concluded; that is, the buyer increasing the price after the deal, or the seller reducing it. Does such an adjustment follow the ruling of the original price or not? The benefit of distinguishing between the two views is that whoever maintains it forms part of the