and 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. So, 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. The third state: That he sells him date palms that have blossomed but have not been pollinated, or trees with fruit that has not yet appeared. This fruit is included in an absolute sale. If he becomes insolvent after the destruction of the fruit, or the destruction of part of it, or an increase in it, or the appearance of its ripening, its ruling is the same as the ruling regarding the destruction of part of the sold item and its connected increase; because the sold item was in the position of a single unit, and that is why the fruit is included in an absolute sale, unlike the previous case. The fourth state: He sells him date palms that are not pregnant (with fruit), and then they blossom, or trees and they produce fruit. This falls into four categories: The first is that he becomes insolvent before their pollination; the blossoms are a connected increase that prevents reclamation according to the view of Al-Khiraqi, like weight gain and growth. It is possible that he may reclaim the date palms but not the blossoms, because it is possible to separate them, and it is valid to isolate them in a sale, so it is like pollinated fruit, unlike weight gain and growth. This is the view of Ibn Hamid. According to the narration of Al-Maymuni, it does not prevent [reclamation]; rather, he may reclaim, and the blossoms belong to the seller, just as if it were rescinded due to a defect. This is one of the two opinions of Al-Shafi'i. The second opinion is that he may reclaim the original without the blossoms, and similarly, according to them, is the return due to a defect, and the acquisition via pre-emption (shuf'a). The second category: He becomes insolvent after pollination and the appearance of the fruit; this does not prevent reclamation without any disagreement, and the fruit belongs to the buyer, except according to the view of Abu Bakr. The correct view is the first, because fruit does not follow [the tree] in a sale that was established by their mutual consent, so in a rescission occurring without the buyer's consent, it is more appropriate. If he sells him empty land and the buyer plants it, then he becomes insolvent, he may reclaim the land but not the crops, by a single unanimous view; because that is the action of the buyer. The third category: He becomes insolvent while the blossoms are unpollinated, and he does not reclaim them until they are pollinated; he no longer has the right of reclamation, just as if he had become insolvent after their pollination; because the item is not transferred except by his selection of it, and he did not select it until after its pollination. If the seller claims reclamation before the pollination and the insolvent person denies it, the statement of the insolvent person is accepted, along with his oath; because the original state is the continuation of his ownership and the non-existence of its termination. If the seller says to him: I sold [it]