If the guardian does not take [the preemption], the minor's reaching maturity is awaited, just as the arrival of an absent person is awaited. The damage they mentioned regarding waiting is refuted by the case of the absent person. If this is established, then the manifest meaning of al-Khiraqi's statement is that the minor, upon reaching maturity, has the right to take it, regardless of whether the guardian waived it or did not waive it, and whether there was benefit in taking it or leaving it. This is the manifest view of Ahmad, in the narration of Ibn Mansur: He has the right of preemption when he reaches maturity and chooses it. He did not differentiate. This is the opinion of al-Awza'i, Zufar, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and some of al-Shafi'i's companions narrated it from him; because the one entitled to preemption possesses the right to take it, whether there is benefit in it for him or not, so it does not lapse by the abandonment of another, like the absent person if his agent abandons taking it. Abu Abdullah ibn Hamid said: If the guardian leaves it for the minor's benefit, or because the minor has no funds with which to take it, it lapses. This is the manifest school of al-Shafi'i; because the guardian performed what he was permitted to perform, so the minor is not permitted to invalidate it, like the return due to a defect. And because he did what was in the minor's interest, so it is valid, like taking it with benefit. If he left it for another reason, it does not lapse. Abu Hanifah said: It lapses by the guardian's waiver of it in both cases; because whoever possesses the right to take it possesses the right to waive it, like the owner. His two companions (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad) disagreed with him on this; because he dropped a right of the ward, and there is no benefit for him in dropping it, so it is not valid, like releasing a debt and dropping the option of return due to a defect. It is not valid to draw an analogy between the guardian and the owner; because the owner has the right to donate, release, and do that which he has no benefit in, unlike the guardian.

Section: As for the guardian, if there is a benefit for the minor in taking it by preemption, such as if the purchase was cheap, or at the price of an equivalent, and the minor has wealth to purchase the real estate, his guardian is obligated to take the preemption; because he is required to act with caution for him and take what is beneficial. If he takes it, ownership is established for the minor, and he does not possess the right to invalidate it after reaching maturity, according to the opinion of most scholars, among them Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the People of Opinion. Al-Awza'i said: The guardian does not have the right to take it; because he does not possess the right to waive it, therefore he does not possess the right to take it, like a stranger, and the minor only takes it when he reaches maturity. This is not correct; because it is an option established to remove harm from wealth, so the guardian possesses it regarding the minor's rights, like the return due to a defect, and we have already mentioned the invalidity of his analogy previously.