the preemptor invalidates the gift and takes the share by virtue of the first contract. If he had not given it away, the price would have belonged to him; likewise, it is so after the rescinded gift.

Section: If he designated it as a dower (sadaq), or as compensation in a khul' (divorce initiated by the wife) or a settlement for intentional homicide, that matter is based on the two opinions regarding taking by preemption.

Section: If the seller and the purchaser mutually rescind the sale (iqala), or the purchaser returns it to the seller due to a defect, the preemptor has the right to rescind the mutual rescission and the return, and take it by preemption, because his right is prior to both of them, and he cannot take it while they exist. If they swear an oath against each other regarding the price and rescind the sale, the preemptor has the right to take the share for the price which the seller swore upon, because the seller acknowledges the sale at the price he swore to and acknowledges the preemptor's entitlement to preemption for that [price]. Therefore, if the purchaser's right is nullified by his denial, the preemptor's right is not nullified by that, and he has the right to nullify their rescission and take it, because his right is earlier.

Section: If he buys a share with a slave, then the seller of the share finds a defect in the slave, he has the right to return the slave and retrieve the share, and this is prioritized over the right of the preemptor. This is because prioritizing the right of the preemptor would cause harm to the seller by nullifying his right to the rescission to which he is entitled, and preemption is established to remove harm, so it is not established in a way that results in harm, for harm is not removed by [another] harm. The followers of al-Shafi'i said, in one of the two opinions: The preemptor's right is prioritized, because his right is earlier, so it must be prioritized, just as if the purchaser found a defect in the share and returned it. As for us, in preemption there is an invalidation of the seller's right, and his right is earlier because it is based on the existence of the defect, which was present at the time of the sale, whereas preemption was established by the sale; thus, the seller's right was earlier, and in preemption, there is an invalidation of it, so it is not established. This differs from what