What is the ruling when a bare palm tree or tree is sold, and it subsequently fruits, categorized into four sub-cases regarding the buyer's bankruptcy?

Primary text

The first sub-case is bankruptcy occurring before pollination. The flower buds are considered an attached increase that prevents revocation, according to the position held by Al-Khiraqi, similar to clarified butter (samin) and capers (kabar). A second view suggests revocation regarding the palms but not the buds, as the buds can be separated and sold independently, making them like pollinated fruit, unlike clarified butter and capers. This is the position of Ibn Hamid. According to a narration of Al-Maymuni, revocation is permitted, and the buds belong to the seller, analogous to revocation due to defect. This aligns with one opinion of Al-Shafi'i.