insolvency, and the combination of the two rights is achieved, so it is more appropriate.

Section: If preemption becomes mandatory, the judge decrees it, and the share is in the possession of the seller, and he [the preemptor] pays the price to the purchaser. If the seller says to the preemptor, "Rescind [the sale] for me," and he rescinds it for him, the rescission (iqala) is not valid; because it is only valid between the transacting parties, and there is no sale between the preemptor and the seller; rather, he is a purchaser from the purchaser. If he [the purchaser] sells it to him, the sale is valid; because real estate may be disposed of before taking possession of it.

876 - Issue; He [Al-Khiraqi] said: "The minor, when he reaches maturity, has the right to demand preemption."

The sum of this is that if a share in a minor's partnership is sold, preemption is established for him according to the opinion of the general body of jurists, among them are al-Hasan, Ata, Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Sawwar, al-'Anbari, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Ibn Abi Layla said: He has no right of preemption. This is also narrated from al-Nakha'i and al-Harith al-'Ukli, because the child cannot take it, and waiting until he reaches maturity is not possible due to the harm it causes the purchaser, and the guardian has no right to take it; because one who does not possess the right to waive [the right of preemption] does not possess the right to take it. We argue based on the generality of the hadiths, and because it is an option established to remove harm from the wealth, so it is established in the case of the child just like the option of return due to a defect. Their statement: "Taking it is not possible," is incorrect; for the guardian may take it by [preemption], just as he may return a defective item. Their statement: "He cannot waive it," is refuted by the case of the agent regarding it, and by the return due to a defect; for the guardian of the child cannot waive it, but he can return it. Furthermore, taking it involves acquiring ownership for the child and is in his best interest, whereas waiving it is a waste and negligence of his rights. It does not follow from the ownership of that which is in one's interest that one also owns that which is detrimental. Moreover, waiving it is a dropping of his right, while taking it is the fulfillment of it, and it does not follow from the guardian's ownership of fulfilling the right of his ward that he has the ownership of dropping it, by evidence of his other rights and debts.