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, and because 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. It differs from the return due to a defect; for that was established to redress a grievance, and that grievance is removed by the preemptor taking it.