The prohibition encompasses both, and their reasoning can be validly attributed to the rationale provided by the Prophet—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—namely, the prevention of [loss of] the fruit and its perishing.

Section: The sale of fruit before its suitability appears, without the condition of immediate cutting, falls into three categories. The first is that he sells it individually to someone other than the owner of the root [tree]. This is the category whose ruling we have mentioned and whose invalidity we have explained. The second is that he sells it along with the root. This is permissible by consensus, due to the saying of the Prophet—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—: "Whoever buys palm trees after they have been pollinated, their fruit belongs to the one who sold them, unless the buyer stipulates otherwise" (7). Furthermore, when he sells them with the root, they are obtained as a derivative in the sale (8), so the probability of uncertainty (gharar) in them does not cause harm, just as ignorance was tolerated in the sale of milk in the udder when sold with the ewe, stones in dates when sold with the dates, and the foundations of walls when sold with a house. The third is that he sells it individually to the owner of the root, such as if it belongs to the seller and the buyer does not stipulate it, so he sells it to him after that; or he bequeaths the fruit of his palm tree to a man (9), and he [the heir] sells it to the heirs of the testator. There are two opinions regarding this. The first is that the sale is valid, which is the famous view of Malik, and one of the two opinions of the followers of al-Shafi'i; because the root and the fruit are combined for the buyer, so it is valid, just as if he had bought them both together. Also, because when he sells it to the owner of the root, delivery to the buyer is achieved perfectly, as he is the owner of its roots and its base, so it is valid, like selling it with its root. The second is that it is not valid, which is one of the two opinions of the followers of al-Shafi'i; because the contract applies specifically to the fruit, and uncertainty in what the contract primarily covers prevents validity, as if the roots belonged to a third party. Also, because it falls under the general prohibition, unlike when he sells them together, for that is excluded by the reported tradition regarding it. Furthermore, uncertainty in what the contract primarily covers prevents validity, whereas when he sells them together, the fruit enters [the contract] as a derivative, and that which is permissible regarding uncertainty in a derivative is not permissible in the principal, just as it is permissible to sell milk in the udder, and the fetus with the ewe,