And Abu Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir [said]: Nothing of the separate growth or earnings enters into the pledge; because it is a right attached to the original, which is satisfied from its price, so it does not extend to anything else, like the right of criminal liability (jinaya). Al-Shafi'i said: If he pledged to him livestock that are pregnant, and they produced offspring, the offspring is excluded from the pledge. Abu Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir disagreed with him. Among their arguments is also the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The pledge belongs to its pledger; its gain is for him, and its liability is upon him." The growth is a gain, so it belongs to the pledger. Also, because it is an entity from the entities of the pledger's wealth, he did not enter into a pledge contract upon it, so it is not a pledge, like the rest of his wealth.

We say: It is a ruling that is established in the entity by the owner's contract, so the growth and benefits enter into it, like ownership through sale and others. Also, because the growth is a newly emerged growth from the entity of the pledge, it enters into it, like the connected growth. And because it is a right established in the mother, confirmed by the consent of the owner, so it extends to the offspring, like Tadbir (post-mortem emancipation) and Istilad (having a child from a slave woman). Our argument against Malik is that it is a newly emerged growth from the entity of the pledge, so the ruling of the pledge extends to it, like the offspring. And against Abu Hanifa: It is a contract that entails the growth, so it entailed the earnings, like a purchase.

As for the Hadith, we affirm it, and that its gain, growth, and earnings belong to the pledger, but the right of the pledge attaches to it, like the original. For it belongs to the pledger, and the right is attached to it. The difference between it and the rest of the pledger's wealth is that it is an accessory, so the ruling of its original is established for it. As for the right of criminal liability, it was established without the owner's consent, so it does not exceed what was established for it. Also, because it is a penalty for aggression, so the perpetrator is specified, like retaliation (qisas). And because the extension of the pledge does not lead to the satisfaction of more than its debt, so the harm in it does not increase.

Section: If one takes as a pledge land, a house, or other things, what follows in a sale follows in the pledge. If there are trees on the land and he said: "I have pledged this land to you with its appurtenances," or he mentioned something indicating that the trees are in the pledge, they are included. If he did not mention that, do the trees enter into the pledge? There are two views, based on their inclusion in a sale. If he pledged fruit-bearing trees to him, and there is