Once this is established, if he does not learn of the sale until the time of his arrival, he has the right to demand it, even if his absence is prolonged; because this option is established to remove harm from wealth, so the passage of time before learning of it does not cause it to lapse, just like the return [of an item] due to a defect. Once he learns of it, his ruling regarding the demand is the ruling of the present person, in that if he demands it immediately, he is entitled to it; otherwise, his right of preemption is voided. The ruling of the sick person, the imprisoned person, and others who did not learn of the sale due to an excuse, is the same as the ruling of the absent person, for the reason we have mentioned.
874 - Issue: He said: "And if he learns of it while he is on a journey, and does not have witnesses testify to his demand, then he has no right of preemption."
The manifest implication of this is that whenever the absent person learns of the sale and is able to have witnesses testify to the demand but does not do so, his right of preemption lapses, regardless of whether he was able to appoint an agent or was unable to, or whether he traveled immediately after learning or stayed. This is the manifest meaning of Ahmad's words in the narration of Abu Talib regarding the absent person: He has the right of preemption if he calls for witnesses when it reaches him; otherwise, he has nothing. This is one perspective for al-Shafi'i. The other perspective is that he does not need to have witnesses testify; because his excuse is established, and the appearance is that he left the preemption for that reason, so his word regarding it is accepted. We hold that he might leave the demand due to an excuse, and he might leave it for another reason; he might travel to seek the preemption, and he might travel for another reason; and he was able to clarify that through witnesses. So, when he did not do so, his right of preemption lapsed, like the one who leaves the demand while he is present. Al-Qadi said: If he traveled immediately after his knowledge to the town where the purchaser is without witnesses, it is possible that his right of preemption would not be voided, because the appearance of his travel is that it is for the demand. This is the opinion of the people of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), al-‘Anbari, and one opinion of al-Shafi'i. The people of opinion said: He has a duration of time after knowledge equal to the time of travel; if the duration passes before he sends word or makes the demand, his right of preemption is voided. Al-‘Anbari said: He has
(5) In the original: "yasqutu" (it lapses). (1) In M: "wa-‘ala" (and on). (2) In the original, there is an addition: "idha" (if). (3) In M: "yatruku" (he leaves).
