and one of them increased it, and the buyer found a defect in it, we say: The seller of the defective item empowered his buyer to rescind by selling him the defective item, so it is as if the rescission originated from him. Therefore, we said, regarding the case where the husband rescinds the marriage due to the woman's defect before consummation: There is no dowry for her, just as if she had rescinded it. Based on this, there is no difference between an increase in the substance, such as weight gain, height, and the like, or in the meanings, such as learning a trade, writing, the Quran, knowledge, conversion to Islam, or the settlement of a debt on his behalf. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan held this view. Abu Hanifah said: An increase through learning the Quran or the settlement of a debt on his behalf does not prevent retraction. To us, it is an increase that has a counterpart in value, so it prevents retraction, like weight gain and learning a trade. If it increases by recovering from an illness or deafness, it prevents retraction, like all other increases. If the increase in substance or learning does not add anything to its value, or reduces it, it does not prevent retraction, because that is not an increase in monetary value. As for separable increase, such as the offspring of an animal, the fruit of a tree, or the earnings of a slave, it does not prevent retraction without any disagreement that we know of. The increase belongs to the child, because it occurred in his property and does not follow in rescissions, so it does not follow here either. Al-Qadi mentioned another opinion: that it belongs to the father. This is far-fetched. If the increase is the child of a slave woman, and it is not permissible to separate the child from its mother, it prevents retraction, because that would necessitate separating him from his mother, and that is forbidden, unless we say that the separable increase belongs to the father, in which case it does not prevent retraction, because he retracts both of them, or he retracts the mother and acquires the child from the property of his child.

Section: If he shortens or tailors the fabric, and its value does not increase, it does not prevent retraction, because the substance has not increased, nor has its value. If its value has increased, it is an inseparable increase; does it prevent retraction or not? This is based on the two narrations regarding weight gain. It is possible that this increase prevents retraction under any circumstance, because it is brought about by the action of the child, so it proceeds in the same manner as an item resulting from his action, unlike weight gain, as it is possible that it belongs to the father, so it would not prevent retraction, because it is the growth of the substance, so it would be a follower to it. If he gifted him a pregnant animal and it gave birth while in the possession of the child, it is an inseparable increase to the offspring. It is possible that the offspring is a separable increase if we say: Pregnancy has no legal standing. If he gifted him a pregnant animal, then retracted it while it was still pregnant, it is permissible if its value has not increased, but if its value has increased, it is an inseparable increase. If he gifted him a non-pregnant animal and it became pregnant, it is a separable increase, and he has the right to retract it without its pregnancy. If we say: The pregnancy has no legal standing, and its value increased because of it, it is an inseparable increase. If its value did not increase, it is permissible to retract it. If he gifted him a palm tree and it became pregnant (pollinated), it is an inseparable increase before pollination, and a separable increase after it.