after the pollination, and the insolvent person says: Rather, it was before it. The statement of the seller is accepted due to this reason. If the creditors testify on behalf of the insolvent person, their testimony is not heard; because they are drawing a benefit to themselves. If they testify on behalf of the seller and they are upright (udul), their testimony is accepted; due to the absence of suspicion. The fourth category: He becomes insolvent after the fruit has been taken, or it has been carried away by a calamity or other means; the seller may reclaim the original, and the fruit belongs to the buyer, except according to the view of Abu Bakr. In every case where the fruit does not follow the tree if the seller reclaims it, he does not have the right to demand that the insolvent person cut the fruit before the time of harvesting. Similarly, if he reclaims land that has crops belonging to the insolvent person, he does not have the right to demand its removal before the time of harvesting; because the buyer planted in his land legitimately, and its growth on the trees occurred legitimately, so he is not obliged to remove it, just as if he had sold the original while it had fruit or crops upon it. There is no charge upon the owner of the crops; because he planted in his land a crop that must be preserved, so it is as if he had utilized the benefit of the land, thus he is not liable for it. Once this is established, if the insolvent person and the creditors agree on preserving or cutting it, they may do so. If they disagree—some demand it be cut and others demand it be preserved—we examine: if it is of a type that has no value once cut, or its value is minimal, it shall not be cut; because cutting it is folly and a waste of wealth, and the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has forbidden its waste (18). If its value is significant, there are two views: One, the statement of whoever demands the cutting is prioritized; because it is more cautious, as there is uncertainty in its preservation. Also, if the one demanding the cut is the insolvent person, he aims to absolve his liability, and if it is the creditors, they are seeking the acceleration of their rights, which is their right. This is the view of the Qadi and most of the Shafi'i scholars. The second, it is examined to see where the benefit lies and acted accordingly; because that is more useful for all of them, and the appearance [of the outcome] is assumed to be safe, which is why it is permissible to cultivate for someone under guardianship. There is another view that if the one demanding the cut is the creditors, their request must be granted; because their rights are due, and they are not obliged to delay them when their fulfillment is possible. If the one demanding it is the insolvent person to the exclusion of the creditors, and the delay is more beneficial for him,