If he does not do so, the mother and her child shall both be sold, and the price divided according to their respective values; whatever is allocated to the mother belongs to the seller, and whatever is allocated to the child belongs to the insolvent person. If we say that the child has a legal ruling—which is the correct view based on what we have mentioned previously—then if the mother and child have increased due to the birth, their ruling is the same as that of an item sold that has increased by a connected increase. If they have not increased, it is permissible to reclaim both. If one of them has increased but not the other, it is derived from the two narrations [of Ahmad] concerning a situation where the sold item consisted of two separate units, and one of them suffered damage; does that prevent reclamation of the other? Two approaches are derived here: The first is that he may reclaim the one that did not increase, but not the one that did, so its ruling is like the ruling of reclaiming the mother without the child, as we have detailed. The second is that he has no right to reclaim any part of either, because he only found the sold item to be in an increased state, thus preventing him from reclaiming it, just like a single item. If the sold item is an animal other than a slave girl, its ruling is the same as hers, except that it is permissible to separate it from its offspring, whereas a slave girl is different.

Section: If one buys a non-pregnant animal, then it becomes pregnant, and he subsequently becomes insolvent while it is pregnant, and its value has increased as a result, this is a connected increase that prevents reclamation according to the view of Al-Khiraqi, and it does not prevent it according to the narration of Al-Maymuni. If he becomes insolvent after it has given birth, it is a disconnected increase and thus belongs to the insolvent person, according to the correct view. Reclamation of the mother without her child is prohibited because of the separation between them that this would entail. This is one of the two opinions of Al-Shafi'i. It is possible that he may reclaim the mother, according to what we mentioned in the previous case. According to the view of Abu Bakr, the increase belongs to the seller, so he has the right to reclaim both. The Qadi said: If we find a pregnant animal, the matter depends on whether the pregnancy has a legal ruling or not. If we say it has no legal ruling, it follows the rule of a connected increase. If we say it does have a legal ruling, then the child is in the position of a disconnected increase; one waits until she gives birth, and the ruling regarding it is as if he had found it after she had given birth. If the pregnancy is in an animal other than a human, it is permissible to separate them, as has preceded.

Section: If the sold item is a date palm or a tree, and the buyer becomes insolvent, there are four possible states: First, that he becomes insolvent while it is in its original state, having not increased, produced fruit, or suffered the loss of any part of it; in this case, he has the right to reclaim it. Second, that it has visible fruit or pollinated blossoms, and the buyer has made that a condition, because he consumes it, disposes of it, or it is destroyed by a calamity, and then he becomes insolvent. This is governed by the rule of one who buys two items and one of them is destroyed, and then he becomes insolvent; is the seller entitled to reclaim the roots and claim a share of the value of the destroyed fruit alongside the other creditors? There are two narrations. If part of it is destroyed, it is like the destruction of the whole. If it has increased or its ripening has become apparent, this is a connected increase in one of the two items, and we have already explained its ruling.