It is necessary to interpret what Ahmad ibn Sa'id reported regarding the validity of the sale as applying to one who did not intend a trick. If he intended a trick and aimed through his stipulation of cutting to find a loophole to keep it on the tree, it is not valid under any circumstances, since it has been established in the school of Ahmad that all legal tricks (hiyal) are invalid. The reasoning for the first narration is that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the sale of fruit before its suitability appeared. He then excepted from this what was bought on the condition of cutting, so he severed it by consensus, while the rest remains upon the original ruling of prohibition. Furthermore, keeping it on the tree is a matter whose stipulation the Shari'ah has forbidden for the right of Allah Almighty, so the contract invalidates its existence, like a deferred payment in transactions where deferment is prohibited, or failing to engage in hand-to-hand exchange where such exchange is stipulated, or the excess amount in transactions where equality is required. Also, the validity of the sale would make it a pretext for buying the fruit before its suitability appeared and leaving it until its suitability appears, and the means to what is prohibited are also prohibited, like the 'inah sale.

Whenever we judge the sale to be corrupt, the fruit entirely belongs to the seller. Another narration states that they should give the excess in charity. The Qadi said: "This is recommended because of the existence of disagreement regarding who is entitled to the fruit, so it was recommended to give it in charity. Otherwise, the right is that it belongs to the seller, as an accessory to the original, like all other growth of a sold item that is inseparable when returned to the seller due to a rescission or invalidity." Ibn Abi Musa reported in "Al-Irshad" that the seller and the buyer shall be partners in the increase. As for if we judge the contract to be valid, it has been narrated that they share in the increase because it resulted while in their ownership, for the buyer owns the fruit and the seller owns the root, which is the cause of the increase. The Qadi said: "The increase belongs to the buyer, like a slave when he gains weight." He interpreted Ahmad's statement "they shall share" as meaning it is recommended. The first view is more evident for what we have mentioned, for the increase resulted from the seller's root without the right to leave it there, so he had a right to it, unlike a slave when he gains weight, for this meaning is not realized in that case, nor does it resemble it. It is not valid to interpret Ahmad's statement as recommendation, for it is not recommended for the seller to take from the buyer what he has no right to; rather, that is forbidden for him, so how could it be recommended!