they learn, there are two views. The first is that the preemptor's right takes precedence, because his right is earlier, for it is established by the marriage contract, while the husband's right is by divorce. The second is that the husband's right is superior, because it is established by text and consensus, and there is neither text nor consensus regarding preemption here. As for when the preemptor waives his right and then the husband divorces, he takes back half of the share; the preemptor is not entitled to take it from him. Likewise, if the annulment comes from the wife and the entire share returns to the husband, the preemptor is not entitled to take it, because it has returned to the owner due to the dissolution of the contract, so the preemptor has no entitlement through it, just as in the case of returning something due to a defect. The same applies to every annulment through which the share returns to the contracting party, such as returning it for a defect, mutual rescission (iqala), disagreement between the two contracting parties, or returning it due to underpricing. We have mentioned another narration regarding mutual rescission, stating that it is a sale, and thus preemption is established in it; this is the view of Abu Hanifa. Based on this, if the preemptor does not know until they have mutually rescinded, he has the right to take it from whichever of them he wishes. If he waives his right to preemption in the sale, and then they mutually rescind, he has the right to take it by it.

Section: If one commits two offenses, one intentional and one erroneous, and settles for a share for both, preemption applies to half of the share, not to the remainder. This is the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. This is according to the narration in which we say that the requirement of an intentional act is retribution in kind. If we say that its requirement is one of two things, preemption becomes mandatory for the entirety. Abu Hanifa said: There is no preemption in the entirety, because taking it by it would result in the fragmentation of the transaction for the buyer. Our argument is that what corresponds to the error is compensation for wealth, so preemption is mandatory in it, just as if it were separate. Furthermore, the transaction combined what necessitates preemption and what does not, so it is mandatory in that which necessitates it, but not the other, just as if he had purchased a share and a sword. By this principle, what he mentioned is invalidated. Abu Hanifa's view is more analogical, because in preemption, there is the fragmentation of the share for the buyer, and perhaps nothing will remain of it except that which has no benefit, so it resembles the case where one of two preemptors wishes to take part of it while his companion waives his right, unlike the issue of the share and the sword. As for when we say that what is mandatory is one of two things, then by his choosing the settlement, the retribution is dropped and the blood money (diya) is determined, so the entirety is compensation for wealth.

Section: Preemption is not established in a sale with an option (khiyar) before its expiration, regardless of whether the option is for both parties or for only one of them, whichever it may be. Abu al-Khattab said: It can be deduced that preemption is established, because ownership has transferred, so preemption is established during the period of the option, just as it is after its expiration. Abu Hanifa said: If the option is for the seller, or for both, preemption is not established until it expires, because taking it by it is an invalidation of the seller's right of annulment and an enforcement of the sale against him without his consent. Furthermore, the preemptor only takes it from the buyer, and ownership has not transferred to him. If the option is for the buyer, ownership has transferred to him and no one else has a right in it, and the preemptor owns the right to take it after the sale becomes binding and ownership is settled; therefore, having that right before it becomes binding is even more appropriate. Most of what is estimated has the option established for it, and that does not prevent taking it by preemption, just as if he found a defect in it. There are two opinions for al-Shafi'i, like the two schools of thought. Our argument is that it is an item sold with an option, so preemption is not established in it, just as if it were for the seller. This is because taking it by preemption forces the buyer into the contract without his consent, imposes the liability upon him, and causes him to lose his right to reclaim the identical price, so it is not permissible, just as if the option were for the seller, for we only prohibited preemption due to the invalidation of the seller's option and the loss of the right to reclaim his identical property, and they are both the same in the eyes of the Law.