Al-Tirmidhi said (14): This is a sound (sahih) hadith. This is from the liability of the buyer, so it is necessary that its yield belongs to him. And because ownership is transferred by the sale (15) as we have mentioned, it is necessary that its growth belongs to him, just as (16) after the expiration of the option. It is possible to derive that the separate growth belongs to the seller if they both dissolve the contract, based on the narration in which we said: Ownership does not transfer. As for the attached growth, it is a subordinate (tabi') to the sold item, whether they finalize the contract or dissolve it, just as it is subordinate to it in the case of returning due to a defect or mutual rescission (muqayala).

Section: The liability for the sold item lies with the buyer if he has taken possession of it, provided it is neither measured nor weighed. If it is destroyed, decreases in value, or a defect occurs in it during the option period, it is his responsibility; because it is his property and its yield is his, therefore it is his liability, just as it is after the expiration of the option, and its maintenance costs are his. If it is a slave and the new moon of Shawwal appears, then its Zakat al-Fitr is his due to that. If one buys a pregnant animal and it gives birth while in his possession during the option period, then he returns it to the seller, he is obligated to return its offspring; because it is a sold item in which an attached increase has occurred, so he is obligated to return it with its increase, just as if one bought two slaves and one of them grew fat while in his possession. Al-Shafi'i said in one of his two opinions: He does not return the offspring; because the fetus has no legal status; because it is a part attached to the mother, thus it did not take a portion of the price, like her limbs. We argue that everything to which the price is allocated when it is separate, is allocated to it when it is attached, like milk. And what they argued is invalidated by an undivided share, like a third or a fourth, and the ruling on the basic principle is denied. Furthermore, the fetus differs from the limbs; because it tends towards separation, it is benefited from when separate, and it is valid to designate it individually for emancipation, and for a bequest, and it inherits if it is of those entitled to inheritance, and it is designated for blood money (diya), and its heirs inherit it. Their statement that the fetus has no legal status is invalid due to these rulings and others which we have mentioned in a place other than this.