Its counterpart in our issue is the equality of the preemptors in their shares. Accordingly, we look for the common denominator (makhraj) of the shares of all the partners, then we take from it the shares of the preemptors. Once you know their count, you divide the preempted share by it, and the property becomes held by the preemptors in accordance with that count, just as is done in the issues of radd (reversion) exactly. Thus, in this issue mentioned by al-Khiraqi, the common denominator of the partners' shares is six. If the owner of the half sells, the preemptors' shares are three: the owner of the third has two shares, and the other has one. Therefore, the preemption between them is according to three, and the property becomes thirds between them: the owner of the third has two-thirds, and the other has one-third. If the owner of the third sells, it is quarters between the other two: the owner of the half has three-quarters, and the other has one-quarter. If the owner of the sixth sells, it is fifths between the other two: the owner of the half has three-fifths, and the other has two-fifths. According to the other narration, the preempted share is divided between the other two in halves in all cases. If the owner of the half sells, the half is divided between his two partners, each receiving a quarter; thus, the owner of the third comes to have a third and a quarter, and the other has a quarter and a sixth. If the owner of the third sells, the owner of the half comes to have two-thirds, and the other has one-third. If the owner of the sixth sells, the owner of the half has a third and a quarter, and the owner of the third has a quarter and a sixth. And Allah knows best.

Section: If two brothers inherit a house, or buy it between them in halves, or otherwise, and one of them dies leaving two sons, and one of them sells his share, the preemption is between his brother and his paternal uncle. This is what Abu Hanifa, al-Muzani, and al-Shafi'i in the 'new' (al-jadid) opinion said. He said in the 'old' (al-qadim) opinion: His brother is more entitled to the preemption. Malik also held this view, because his brother is more specific in his partnership than the paternal uncle, due to their sharing in the cause of ownership. We argue that they are both partners at the time the preemption is established, so it is between them, just as if they had all acquired it by one cause. Furthermore, preemption is established to repel the harm of a partner entering upon his partners due to his partnership, and this is found in the right of all of them. What they mentioned has no basis, and it has not been established that the Lawgiver considered it in any place; consideration is given to the partnership, not its cause. And is it divided between the paternal uncle and his brother's son in halves, or according to the proportion of their two holdings? There are two narrations on this. Likewise, if a man buys half of a house, then his two sons buy the other half, or inherit it, or are gifted it, or it reaches them by any of the causes of ownership, and one of them sells his share, the preemption is between all the partners. Similarly, if a man dies and leaves two daughters and two sisters, and one of the sisters or one of the daughters sells her share, the preemption is between all the partners. If a man dies and leaves three sons and land, and one of them dies leaving two sons, and one of the two paternal uncles sells his share, the preemption is between his brother and his brother's two sons. If he leaves two sons and bequeaths a third of his estate to two people, and one of the legatees or one of the sons sells, the preemption is between all of his partners. Our opponents have a disagreement in these issues that would take too long to mention.

Section: If the purchaser is a partner, the other preemptor may take [the share] in proportion to his share. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i held this view. It was narrated from al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, and al-Batti that there is no preemption for the other, because it is established to repel the harm of an entering partner, and his partnership here is pre-existing, so there is no harm in his purchase. Ibn al-Sabbagh narrated from them that the entire preemption belongs to the one other than the purchaser, and the purchaser has no right to any of it, because it is a right claimed against him, and he cannot claim it against himself. We argue that they are equal in partnership, so they are equal in preemption, just as if an outsider had purchased it. Indeed, the purchaser is even more entitled because he has already acquired the preempted share. What we mentioned for the first view is incorrect, because the harm occurs by the purchase of this preempted share, without regard to who the purchaser is, and its purchase has occurred. The second [view] is also incorrect, because we do not say that he takes from himself by preemption; rather, he prevents the partner from taking [the share] in proportion...