if some of it is sold, preemption becomes mandatory for the owner of the remainder. Preemption is like partition because each of them is intended to remove the harm of partnership and the limitation of control. Therefore, that for which partition is not mandatory, preemption is not mandatory in it; likewise, that for which there is no preemption, its partition is not mandatory. The inverse of this is that whatever is mandatory to partition, preemption is mandatory in it, and whatever is mandatory for preemption, its partition is mandatory. This is because if the ripening of the fruit (bada al-ṣalāḥ) appears in some of the orchard, it is considered ripening for the rest of it, even if it is large, but it is not considered ripening for what is adjacent to it, even if it is small.

Section: If there is a crop on the land and one of them requests its partition without the crop, the one who refuses shall be compelled, because the crop on the land is like goods in a house; it does not prevent partition, just like the goods. This applies whether the crop has emerged or is merely seeds that have not emerged. When they divide it, the crop remains shared between them, just as if they had sold the land to someone else. If one of them requests the partition of the crop separately, the other shall not be compelled to do so, because partition requires the balancing of the divided items, and balancing the crop by shares is not possible since it is required to remain in the shared land. If one requests its partition along with the crop, and it has already emerged, it is permissible, and the one who refuses shall be compelled to it, whether it is green forage (qaṣīl) or the grain has hardened, because the crop is like trees in the land, and partition is the releasing of a right, not a sale. If we say: It is a sale, it is not permissible if the grain has hardened, because it would involve selling part of the spike for another part. It is possible that it is permissible, because the spikes here entered as dependents of the land, so they are not the primary objective; thus, it resembles the sale of a fruit-bearing palm tree with its equivalent. Al-Shāfiʿī said: The one who refuses to partition it with the crop shall not be compelled, because the crop is deposited in the land for the purpose of being moved from it, so its partition with the land is not mandatory, like goods inside it. Our argument is that it is established in it for growth and benefit, so it resembles planting and is distinct from goods, as the latter is not connected to the house and there is no harm in moving it. If the