If the sold item is grapes or fruit, he does the same, and he takes it when its ripening reaches its end, its sweetness matures, and it is harvested like its equivalent. This is the opinion of Malik and al-Shafi'i.

Section: If some of it is pollinated but not the rest, the text transmitted from Ahmad is that what was pollinated belongs to the seller, and what was not pollinated belongs to the buyer. This is the opinion of Abu Bakr, based on the report upon which the foundation of this issue is built, for its explicit meaning is that what is pollinated belongs to the seller, and its implied meaning is that what is not pollinated belongs to the buyer. Ibn Hamid said: The whole belongs to the seller. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because if we do not make the entirety belong to the seller, it would lead to harm due to the sharing of hands in the orchard. Therefore, it is necessary to make that which was not pollinated follow what was pollinated, like the fruit of a single palm tree, for there is no disagreement that pollinating part of the palm tree makes all of it belong to the seller. The latent may follow the manifest, just as the foundations of walls follow the exterior part. Furthermore, when the wholesomeness of some of an orchard's fruit becomes apparent, it is permissible to sell all of it without the condition of cutting; likewise is the case here. This belongs to the same type, because it is apparent that a single type approaches and follows one another in maturity. As for when it is pollinated, another type does not follow it. Abu al-Khattab did not differentiate between the type and the entire species, and this is the apparent position of the Shafi'i school, because it leads to poor partnership and the conflict of hands, as in the case of a single type. Our evidence is that the two types are distant from each other and one is distinct from the other, and there is no fear of their mixing or confusion; thus they resemble two distinct species. What he mentioned is invalidated by [the case of] two species, and analogy to a single type is not valid due to their difference in what we have mentioned. If he sells two gardens, one of which he has pollinated, the other does not follow it, because that leads to poor partnership and conflict of hands due to each one of them being separate from its companion. If he pollinated part of a garden, and then sold separately that which was not pollinated, the sold item has the ruling of itself and does not follow the other. The judge (al-Qadi) derived a perspective that it follows the non-sold item and belongs to the seller, because the ruling of pollination has been established for the entire garden. This is one of the two views of the Shafi'i companions. This is not correct because the sold item...