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. 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. Or if three people inherit a house, and one of them sells his share to two people, then one of the two purchasers 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 to