For preemption is only established contrary to the original rule in order to ward off the harm to the incoming partner, for fear of poor partnership and the burden of division. Thus, if he takes only part of the share, the harm is not warded off from him, so the rationale that permits the departure from the original rule is not realized; therefore, it is not established. If the preemptor were alone, it would not be permissible for him to take part of the sold property for the same reason; if he did so, his preemption would be voided, because it cannot be partitioned. Thus, if part of it is voided, the whole of it is voided, just like [the right to] retaliation (qisas). If some of the partners gift their share of the preemption to some of their partners or to someone else, it is not valid, because that is a waiver and not a gift; therefore, it is not valid to anyone other than the person against whom it is [exercised], like the waiver of retaliation (qisas).

Section: If the preemptors are absent, the preemption is not voided due to the existence of an excuse. If one of them arrives, he has no right to take anything except the whole, or to leave it, because we do not know of any claimant today other than him, and because his taking a part constitutes a partitioning of the purchaser's transaction, so that is not permissible, just as [if there were not] anyone with him. It is not possible to delay his right until his partners arrive, because there is harm to the purchaser in such a delay. If he takes the whole, then another arrives, he may divide it with him if he wishes or waive his right, and the rest remains with the first one, because the demand was only found from both of them. If he divides it with him, and then a third one arrives, he may divide it with both of them if he wishes or waive his right, and the rest remains with the first two. If the share grows while in the possession of the first one with a separate growth, neither of them shall share it with him, because it separated while in [his ownership, and it resembles that which would have separated while in] the possession of the purchaser before taking [the property] via preemption. Likewise, if the second one takes it and it grows while in his possession with a separate growth, the third one does not share it with him. If the share emerges as being rightfully owned by someone else (mustahaqqa), the liability (uhda) lies with the purchaser. All three return against him, and none of them returns against the other; for the taking, even if it is from the first one, is equivalent to [the taker] being a deputy for the purchaser in delivering it to them, and a deputy for them in delivering the price to him, because the preemption is a right owed by him to them. This is the apparent school of al-Shafi'i.