The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "Whoever buys palm trees after they have been pollinated, and does not stipulate that the fruit is included, has no right to the fruit. And whoever buys a slave without stipulating that his property is included, has no right to that property."
قال رسول الله ﷺ: من اشترى نخلا بعد ما أبرت، ولم يشترط ثمرها فلا شيء له، ومن اشترى عبدا، ولم يشترط ماله فلا شيء له.
No references are available.
Ali bin Jaad reported it (2875), and from his route Ibn Hibban (4921) reported it from Abu Yaala, from him, from Ibn Abu Dhib, from Ibn Shihab, from Salim bin Abdullah, from Ibn Umar, and he related it. Its chain is sahih.The summary of what we have concluded from examining this hadith is that Salim and Nafi differed regarding Ibn Umar. Salim narrated it from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ, covering both stories together, that of the slave and that of the palm trees, and sometimes he narrated only the story of the palm trees. Nafi narrated it from Ibn Umar, but he separated the story of the palm trees from that of the slave, making the story of the palm trees from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet ﷺ, as a raised report, and the story of the slave from Ibn Umar, from Umar bin Khattab, as a stopped report. So the scholars differed over which of the two should be given preference.Muslim preferred the statement of Nafi, even though Salim was more precise in memory than him, as Bayhaqi related from his teacher Abu Abdullah Hafiz, who said, I heard Abu Ali Husayn bin Ali Hafiz say, I heard Abu Hamid Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hasan say, I asked Muslim bin Hajjaj, may Allah have mercy on him, about the disagreement between Salim and Nafi concerning the story of the slave. He said, "The correct view is what Nafi said, even though Salim was more precise in memory than him."Nasai said the same. Bukhari considered both hadiths sahih and did not give preference to one over the other.Tirmidhi said in his book al-Ilal (1/499), "I asked Muhammad about this hadith, and I said to him, the hadith of Zuhri, from Salim, from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ, 'Whoever sells a slave...' while Nafi said, from Ibn Umar, from Umar. Which of the two is more sahih?" He said, "Nafi differs with Salim in a number of hadiths, and this is one of them. Salim narrated from his father, from the Prophet ﷺ, while Nafi said, from Ibn Umar, from Umar, as though he considered both hadiths sahih, holding that both could be accepted."This is indeed the correct view, for each of the two narrated from Ibn Umar what he heard from him. Ibn Umar himself narrated it at one time combining both stories, and at another time separating them. So there is no basis for preferring one report over the other, rather both are sahih, since we find that Salim himself sometimes shortened it to only the story of the palm trees without the slave, and all of it is sahih.The apparent meaning of the hadiths on this subject indicates that pollination marks the boundary determining whether the fruit follows the original property or not. If it has been pollinated, its ruling becomes independent. The majority of the scholars, among them Malik, Shafii, and Ahmad, held to the apparent meaning of this hadith. The proponents of legal reasoning held that the fruit belongs to the seller whether it has been pollinated or not, unless the buyer stipulates otherwise, as with crops.Likewise, the apparent meaning of the hadith indicates that the wealth of the slave belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates otherwise, and this is the view of Malik, Shafii, and Ahmad. This is based on the scholars' disagreement over whether a slave may own property or not. The majority of the scholars held that a slave owns nothing except what his master permits him to own, so his wealth reverts to his master, as the hadith indicates, unless the buyer stipulates otherwise.And with Allah lies success.