consideration, such as a gift without a return (thawab), charity, a bequest, or inheritance, there is no preemption in it according to the general body of scholars; among them are Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the People of Opinion. Another narration was related from Malik regarding that which is transferred by gift or charity, that there is preemption in it, and the preemptor takes it for its value. This has also been related from Ibn Abi Layla, because preemption was established to remove the harm of shared ownership, and this is present in shared ownership however it came about, and the harm befalling the donee is less than the harm to the buyer; for the buyer's resolve to purchase the share and his expenditure of wealth for it is evidence of his need for it, so stripping it from him is a greater harm than taking it from one who did not exhibit evidence of need for it. Our argument is that it was transferred without consideration, so it resembles inheritance. Also, the case upon which there is agreement is the sale, and the report came concerning it, and anything else is not in the same category; because the preemptor takes it from the buyer by the same means through which it was transferred to him, and this is not possible in other cases. Furthermore, the preemptor takes the share for its price, not its value, whereas in other cases he would take it for its value, so they differ. As for that which is transferred for consideration, it is divided into two types: one is that for which the consideration is wealth, such as a sale, and in this, there is preemption without disagreement. It is included in the hadith of Jabir, "If he has sold and did not inform him, he has the better right to it." Likewise is every contract that proceeds in the manner of a sale, such as a settlement (sulh) that carries the meaning of a sale, a settlement regarding criminal acts that require payment of wealth, and a gift in which a known return (thawab) is stipulated, because that is a sale in which the rulings of a sale have been established, and this is one of them. This is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the People of Opinion. However, Abu Hanifa and his companions said: Preemption is not established in a gift for which a return is stipulated until they have taken possession, because a gift is not established except through taking possession, so it resembles a sale with a condition of option (khiyar). Our argument is that he owns it for a consideration which is wealth, so it does not require taking possession for the eligibility of preemption, like a sale. What they said about considering the wording of the 'gift' is incorrect, because the consideration diverted the wording from its implication and made it an expression for a sale, especially according to them, for it is a term through which a marriage contract can be concluded, in which a gift is not valid by consensus. The second type is that which is transferred for a consideration other than wealth, such as if he makes the share a dowry, or as compensation in a khul' (divorce initiated by the wife), or in a settlement regarding intentional homicide. The literal implication of the statement of...