This is an inseparable increase, so it follows the original, just as it would if it were returned due to a defect, an option of condition, or mutual rescission. If it is said: Why then does the husband not claim back his half plus the increase if he divorces [before consummation]? We say: Because the husband is able to reclaim the value if he loses the ability to reclaim the actual item. In our issue, if he does not reclaim the share, his right to preemption lapses, yet his right to the original does not lapse due to what occurred from the seller. When he takes the original, its connected growth follows it, as we mentioned regarding all rescissions. The second situation is that the increase is separable, such as produce, rent, pollinated dates, or visible fruit. This belongs to the purchaser, and the pre-emptor has no right to it because it occurred during the purchaser's ownership. It remains for the purchaser on the palm trees until harvest, because the pre-emptor's taking from the purchaser is a second sale, so its ruling is the ruling of what he bought by his own consent. If he bought it while it contained unpollinated dates, then he pollinated them, and then the pre-emptor took it, he takes the original without the fruit, and he takes the land and the palms for their proportional share of the price, just as if the sold item were a share and a sword.

Section: If the share or part of it perishes in the hands of the purchaser, it is at his own risk because it is his property that perished in his hands. Then, if the pre-emptor wishes to take it after part of it has perished, he takes the remainder for its proportional share of the price, whether the loss was by the act of Allah the Almighty or by the act of a human, and whether it perished by the purchaser's choice—like his dismantling of a building—or without his choice, such as if it collapsed. If the materials are present, he takes them with the land for the [proportional] share. If they are non-existent, he takes the land and what remains of the building. This is the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words in the narration of Ibn al-Qasim, and this is the view of al-Thawri, al-Anbari, Abu Yusuf, and one view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Abd Allah ibn Hamid said: If the loss was by the act of a human, it is as we mentioned, but if it was by the act of Allah the Almighty, such as the building collapsing on its own, or fire, or drowning, then the pre-emptor has no right to take the remainder unless he pays the entire price, or he leaves it. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and one view of al-Shafi'i, because whenever the decrease is by the act of a human, its replacement returns to the purchaser, so he is not harmed, whereas when it is by other than that, nothing returns to him, so taking it from him would be a harm, and harm is not removed by harm. Our position is that it has become impossible for the pre-emptor to take the whole, yet he is able to take the part, so he is entitled to it for the proportional share of the price, just as if it had perished by the act of someone other than a human, or as if there were another pre-emptor. Or we say: He is taking part of what entered into the contract with him, so he takes it for the proportional share, just as if a sword were included with it. As for the harm, it resulted from the loss, and the pre-emptor had no part in it, and the one whom the pre-emptor takes from receives its price, so the purchaser is not harmed by his taking it. We said he takes the materials even if they are separated because his entitlement to preemption existed at the time of the sale contract, and at that time, it was connected in a way that did not lead to separation, and its separation thereafter does not nullify the right of preemption. This differs from unpollinated fruit if it becomes pollinated, for its result is toward separation and appearance; once it appears, it has become separated, so it does not enter into preemption. If the value decreases while the form of the sold item remains, such as a wall cracking, a building becoming dilapidated, trees becoming stunted, or the land becoming fallow, he has no choice but to take it for the entire price or leave it, because these defects are not compensated by a portion of the price, unlike tangible items. This is why we said: If the purchaser builds, the pre-emptor gives him the value of his building, and if the sold item increases with a connected increase, it enters into preemption.