the preemptor. If the preemptor sells his share during the option period, while knowing of the first sale, his preemption right is voided, and preemption is established for the one to whom he sold, relative to the first buyer, according to the correct view of the school. According to another position, it is established for the seller, based on the principle of who holds ownership during the option period. If he sold it before knowing of the sale, the ruling is the same. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because his ownership ceased before the preemption was established. Based on the deduction of Abu al-Khattab, it is plausible that his preemption does not fall, and thus he would have the right to take the share from the first buyer, and the first buyer would have the right to take the share that the preemptor sold from his buyer, because he was a partner to the preemptor at the time of his sale.

Section: The sale by a sick person is like the sale by a healthy person, in terms of validity, the establishment of preemption, and other rulings, if he sells at the market price, whether it is to an heir or a non-heir. This is the position of al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad. Abu Hanifa said: The sale by a person suffering from a death-bed illness to his heir is not valid, because he is restricted regarding him, so his sale is not valid, like a minor. Our argument is that he is only restricted regarding gratuitous acts (tabarru') involving his rights, so it does not prevent validity in other matters, like with a foreigner, provided it does not exceed the donation of one-third. This is because restriction in one thing does not prevent the validity of another, just as the restriction on a pawnbroker regarding the pawned item does not prevent dealing with other assets, and the restriction on an insolvent person regarding his wealth does not prevent him from dealing with his personal liability. As for selling with preferential treatment (muhabah), it must fall into one of two cases: either it is for an heir or for someone else. If it is for an heir, the preferential treatment is void, because it is in the position of a bequest (wasiyya) during sickness, and a bequest to an heir is not permissible; thus, the sale is void to the extent of the preferential treatment from the item sold. Does it remain valid for the rest? There are three views: The first is that it is not valid, because the buyer offered the price for the entire item sold, so it cannot be valid for only a part of it, just as if he said, "I sold you this garment for ten," and he replied, "I accept the sale for half of it," or said, "I accept it for five," or "I accept half of it for five." Furthermore, because it is impossible to validate the sale in the manner they agreed upon, it is invalid, similar to the splitting of a single transaction. The second is that the sale is void to the extent of the preferential treatment and valid for that which corresponds to the named price, and the buyer has the option between accepting or annulling the contract, because the transaction has been split for him, and the preemptor may take that for which the sale was valid. We argue for its validity because the invalidity only arose from the preferential treatment, so it is specific to that which corresponds to it.