The provider of the capital, and we have mentioned both. If the mudarib is its pre-emptor, and there is no profit in the capital, he has the right to take it through preemption, because the ownership belongs to another. If there is profit in it, and we say: "He does not own by mere appearance [of profit]," then it is the same. If we say: "He does own by appearance," then there are two views, similar to the capital provider. The school of al-Shafi'i in all of this is according to what we have mentioned. If the mudarib sells a share in his partnership, he does not have the right to take it through preemption, because he is a suspect party; therefore, it is similar to his purchasing from himself.

Section: There is no right of preemption in a waqf (endowment) partnership. This was mentioned by the two judges: Ibn Abi Musa and Abu Ya'la, and it is the apparent position of the school of al-Shafi'i, because it is not taken through preemption; thus, it is not obligatory therein, like a neighbor or an undivided share. Furthermore, because if we say: "It is not owned," then the beneficiary is not an owner. And if we say: "It is owned," then its ownership is incomplete, because it does not provide the permission for disposal of the essence, so one does not possess full ownership through it. Abu al-Khattab said: "If we say it is owned, the right of preemption is obligatory through it, because it is an owned entity, and a share was sold in its partnership, so the right of preemption is obligatory through it, just as it is in the case of absolute property (tilq). Moreover, the harm is repelled from it through preemption, just as in absolute property, so it becomes obligatory therein, like its obligation in absolute property. It is only entitled to preemption because taking it through preemption is a sale, and it is among the things that are not permissible to sell.

877- Issue: He [Ibn Qudama] said: "And if the purchaser builds [on the property], the pre-emptor shall give him the value of his building, unless the purchaser wishes to take his building, in which case he may do so, provided there is no harm in his taking it."

The summary is that it is conceivable for the purchaser to build and plant on the share subject to preemption in a permissible manner in several scenarios. Among them is that the purchaser asserts that it was gifted to him, or that he purchased it for more than its price, or other things that prevent the pre-emptor from taking it through preemption, so he leaves it and divides it [with the purchaser], and then the purchaser builds and plants [on it].