Abu al-Khattab said: His preemption does not lapse, because it was established for him and no consent was found from him to abandon it, nor was there anything indicating its abandonment, and the fundamental principle is its persistence, so it remains. It differs from the case where he knew, for his sale is evidence of his consent to abandon it. According to this, the second seller has the right to take the share from the first purchaser. If he forgives him, the first purchaser has the right to take the share from the second purchaser. And if he takes it from him, then does the first purchaser have [the right] to take from the second? There are two views.

873 - Issue: He said: "Whoever is absent and learns of the sale at the time of his arrival, he has the right of preemption, even if his absence is prolonged."

The entirety of this is that the absent person has the right of preemption, according to the opinion of most scholars. This is narrated from Shurayh, al-Hasan, and ‘Ata’. This is also the view of Malik, al-Layth, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, al-‘Anbari, and the people of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). It was narrated from al-Nakha'i that there is no preemption for the absent person. This is also the view of al-Harith al-‘Ukli and al-Batti, except for the person whose absence is near; because establishing the right of preemption for him harms the purchaser and prevents the stability of his ownership and his disposition [of the property] according to his choice, for fear of him taking it, so it is not established, just as it is established for the present person upon delay. We hold the generality of his saying, peace be upon him: "Preemption is in what has not been divided." And the rest of the hadiths, and because preemption is a financial right whose cause is found in relation to the absent person, so it is established for him, like inheritance. Furthermore, because he is a partner who did not know of the sale, the right of preemption is established for him upon his knowledge, just like the present person if the sale was concealed from him, and the person absent for a short period. The harm to the purchaser is repelled by mandating the value for him, as in the mentioned cases. If