his right of preemption lapses; because the harm in what he concealed is greater, so if he is not content with it at a low price with its minor harm, then he is less likely to be content with a higher price.

Section: If the preemptor meets him in a land other than his own and does not demand it, saying: "I only delayed the demand so that I could demand it in the land where the sale or the sold item is, or to take the share in the place of the preemption," his right of preemption lapses. This is because that is not an excuse for leaving the demand, for the demand is not contingent upon the handover of the share nor upon being present in the land where it is located. If he says: "I forgot, so I did not mention the demand," or "I forgot about the sale," his right of preemption lapses; because it is an option (khiyar) that must be exercised immediately. If he delays it due to forgetfulness, it is nullified, just like the right to return an item due to a defect, and just as if a woman who has been emancipated allows her husband to have intercourse with her out of forgetfulness. It is possible that the demand does not lapse because he left it due to an excuse, thus it resembles the case where he left it due to lack of knowledge of it. If he left it while ignorant of his entitlement to it, it is nullified, just like the return for a defect.

Section: If the preemptor says to the buyer: "Sell me what you bought," or "Partition it with me," his right of preemption is nullified, because this indicates his consent to his purchase and his abandonment of the preemption. If he says: "Make a settlement with me for money," it also lapses. Al-Qadi said: "It does not lapse, because he did not consent to abandoning it, but rather consented to a substitute for it, and the substitute was not established, so the preemption remains." Our position is that he consented to abandoning it and requested its substitute, so the abandonment that he consented to is established, while the substitute is not, just as if he had said "Sell it to me," and he did not sell it to him. Furthermore, since abandoning the demand for it is sufficient for it to lapse, then with the request for its substitute, it is even more so. The followers of al-Shafi'i have two opinions like these two. If he settles with him for it in exchange for a substitute, it is not valid. This is the view of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i. Malik said: "It is valid; because it is a substitute for the removal of property, so it is permissible, like taking a substitute for a woman's ownership of her own affairs." Our position is that it is an option that does not lapse in exchange for money, so it is not permissible to take a substitute for it, like the option of stipulation (khiyar al-shart). What he said regarding the option of stipulation is nullified. As for khul' (divorce for compensation), it is an exchange for what he owned in return for compensation, whereas here it is the opposite.