the garment is sold, and each of the two takes his share according to his right. If the work was done by a craftsman who has not yet received his wage, he has the right to withhold the garment until his wage is received. If the increase is equal to the amount of the wage, it is given to him. If it is less, he has the right to withhold the garment until he receives the amount of the increase, and he claims with the creditors for what remains. If it is more, such as the increase being two dirhams and the other being one, he has the amount of his wage, and whatever remains goes to the creditors.

Section: The second condition is that the sold item must not have increased with an increase that is connected, such as gaining weight, growing in size, or learning a craft, writing, or the Quran, and the like. The school (Madhab) differed on this matter. Al-Khiraqi held the view that such an increase prevents reclamation. Al-Maymuni narrated from Ahmad that it does not prevent it. This is the school of Malik and Al-Shafi'i, except that Malik gives the creditors a choice between giving him the item or its price for which he sold it. They cited as evidence the report, and that it (reclamation) is a dissolution (faskh) not prevented by a disconnected increase, so it is not prevented by a connected one, just as in the return of an item due to a defect. It differs from divorce, for that is not a dissolution, and because the husband is able to reclaim the value of the substance, so he attains his full right. Here, however, he cannot reclaim the price. Our evidence [for the opposite view] is that it is a dissolution due to an emergent cause, so he does not possess the right to reclaim the substance of the property that has increased with a connected increase, just as in the dissolution of a marriage due to insolvency or breastfeeding. Also, because it is an increase in the property of the insolvent person, the seller is not entitled to take it, just as in the case of a disconnected increase, or one resulting from his own action. Furthermore, the growth did not reach him from the seller, so he is not entitled to take it from him, like the rest of his wealth. It differs from returning due to a defect for two reasons: First, the dissolution in that case is by the buyer, so he is satisfied with relinquishing his right to the increase and leaving it to the seller, unlike in our issue. Second, the dissolution there is for a reason that accompanied the contract, which is the original defect, whereas the dissolution here is for an emergent cause; thus, it is more like the dissolution of a marriage, in which one is not entitled to retrieve the increased substance. Regarding their statement that the husband only did not reclaim the substance because the harm is repelled from him by the value,