al-Juzajani in his book. This is because the pre-emptor only became entitled to the share through the sale, so he is entitled to it for the price, just like the purchaser. If it is said: The pre-emptor became entitled to take it without the consent of its owner, so he should take it for its value, like a person in dire need taking the food of another. We say: The person in dire need became entitled to take it due to a specific necessity, so the reference point for its substitute is its value. However, the pre-emptor became entitled to it on account of the sale; for this reason, if it were transferred by gift or inheritance, he would not be entitled to pre-emption. Since he became entitled to it through the sale, it is necessary that it be for the compensation established by the sale. Once this is established, we look at the price; if it is dinars or dirhams, the pre-emptor gives him the equivalent. If it is something that has no equivalent, such as garments and livestock, the pre-emptor is entitled to the share for the value of the price. This is the opinion of most scholars and the view of the followers of reason (Ashab al-Ra’y) and al-Shafi'i. It has been narrated from al-Hasan and Sawwar that pre-emption is not obligatory here, because it is only obligatory by the equivalent of the price, and this has no equivalent, so taking it becomes impossible and thus not obligatory, just as if the price were unknown. Our position is that it is one of the two types of price, so it is valid for pre-emption to be established by it regarding the sold item, just as with items having an equivalent. What they mentioned is not correct, because an equivalent can be in terms of form or in terms of value, like the substitute for a perished item. If the price is from those things that have equivalents other than currencies, such as grains and oils, our companions said: The pre-emptor takes it for its equivalent, because it is among those things having equivalents, so it is like currencies. This is also the view of the followers of reason and the followers of al-Shafi'i. This is because it is an equivalent in terms of form and value, so it is more deserving than that which is equivalent in only one of them, and because what is obligatory is the substitute for the price, so it should be its equivalent, like the substitute for a loan and a perished item.

Section: The pre-emptor is entitled to the share for the price upon which the contract was settled. If they traded for an amount and then changed it during the option period by increasing or decreasing it, that change is established in relation to the pre-emptor, because the right of the pre-emptor is only established when the contract is concluded, and he is only entitled to it by the price that is fixed at the time of his entitlement.