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. The third view is that it is valid in its entirety and is contingent upon the permission of the heirs, because a bequest to an heir is valid, according to the more correct of the two reports, and is contingent upon the permission of the heirs; thus, the preferential treatment for him is the same. If they permit the preferential treatment, the sale is valid in its entirety, and the buyer has no option, and the preemptor has the right to take it, because he takes it for the price. If they reject it, the sale is void to the extent of the preferential treatment and valid for what remains. The preemptor does not have the right to take it before the permission or rejection of the heirs, because their right is attached to the item sold, so he cannot invalidate it, but he has the right to take that for which the sale was valid. If the buyer chooses to reject in this instance, or in the preceding one, and the preemptor chooses to take it by preemption, the preemptor is given priority, because there is no harm to the buyer; this follows the same course as an item with a defect when the preemptor is satisfied with its defect.

Section Two: If the buyer is a foreigner and the preemptor is a foreigner, and the preferential treatment does not exceed one-third, the sale is valid, and the preemptor has the right to take it for that price, because the sale was successfully concluded by it, and the fact that the item was sold cheaply does not prevent it. If it exceeds one-third, the ruling is the same as the primary ruling for preferential treatment regarding an heir. If the preemptor is an heir, there are two views: one is that he has the right to take it by preemption, because the preferential treatment occurred for someone else, so the heir's ability to take it does not prevent it, just as if he had gifted wealth to an heir's creditor, and the heir then took it. The second is that the sale is valid, but preemption is not obligatory. This is the position of the companions of Abu Hanifa, because if we were to establish it, we would be providing the heir with a path