as a substitute for it, similar to the option of stipulation (khiyar al-shart). And 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.

Section: If he says: "I will take half of the share," his right of preemption lapses. This is the view of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and some of the followers of al-Shafi'i. Abu Yusuf said: "It does not lapse; because demanding some of it is a demand for all of it, since it cannot be divided, and it is not permissible to take some of it." Our position is that he is abandoning the demand for some of it, so it lapses, and the remainder of it lapses, because it cannot be divided. What he mentioned is not valid; for demanding some of it is not a demand for all of it, and that which cannot be divided is not established until the cause is established in its entirety, like marriage. It is contrary to [the concept of] lapse; for the entirety lapses by the presence of the cause in some of it, like divorce and emancipation.

Section: If he takes the share with usurped (maghsoub) wealth, there are two views. One of them is that his right of preemption does not lapse; because through the contract he becomes entitled to the share for the equivalent of its price in liability (dhimma), so if he specifies it in that which he does not own, the specification lapses, and the entitlement remains in the liability, so it resembles the case where he delays the price, or as if he bought something else and paid a usurped price for it. The second [view] is that his right of preemption lapses; because his taking the share with that which is not valid to take it with is an abandonment of it and a turning away from it, so the preemption lapses, just as if he had abandoned the demand for it.

Section: Whoever is entitled to preemption, and then sells his share while being aware of that, his right of preemption lapses; because he no longer possesses the property through which he is entitled to it, and because the preemption was established for him to remove the harm resulting from the partnership against him,