And it is the opinion of most of the companions of al-Shafi'i. It is because it is a place of necessity, so it resembles the case where she gives birth to a free child, for it is permissible to sell her without her child. As for our evidence, it is the generality of the Prophet's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement: "Whoever separates between a mother and her child, Allah will separate between him and his loved ones on the Day of Resurrection." Also, because it is possible to repel the harm by taking the compensation (arsh), or by returning her child with her, so it is not permissible to commit the act forbidden by the Sharia of separating between them, just as if he wanted to rescind the contract regarding her without her child. Regarding their claim that necessity calls for it, we say: The necessity has already been repelled by taking the compensation. However, if she gives birth to a free child, there is no way to sell him with her under any circumstances. If the sold item is an animal other than a human, and pregnancy occurs in the buyer's possession, it does not prevent the return due to a defect because it is an increase (ziyadah). If he learns of the defect after the birth and the birth did not decrease her value, he may retain the offspring and return the mother, because separation between them is permissible. There is no difference between her pregnancy before the taking of possession or after it. If he bought her while she was pregnant, and she gave birth in his possession, then he discovered the defect and returned her, he must return the offspring with her because it is part of the sold item, and the increase in it is growth connected to the sold item, so it resembles the case if the sheep became fat. If the offspring perishes, it is like the defect of the sold item in his possession. If we say he has the right to return it, he is liable for its value if he chooses to return the mother. According to Ahmad, he is not liable for the value of the offspring, and al-Qadi interpreted this as applying when the seller has practiced deception regarding the defect. If the mother decreased in value due to the birth, that is a defect that occurred, and its ruling is the ruling of defects that occur later. It is possible to interpret Ahmad's statement to mean that the pregnancy itself has no ruling, which is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. Accordingly, the offspring is for the buyer, so he is not obliged to return it if it is still alive, nor its value if it has perished. The first view is the correct one, and it is the one practiced, if Allah the Almighty wills.