the second sale, owned by the one who purchased it first. The second is that he does not share with him, because his ownership of the first did not stabilize, as the preemptor has the right to take it. The third is that if the preemptor pardons him for the first, he shares with him in the second, and if he takes both, he does not share with him. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because if he pardons him for it, his ownership stabilizes, so he shares through it, unlike when he takes it. If we say that he shares in the preemption, there are two views regarding the amount he is entitled to: the first is one-third of it, and the second is half of it, based on the two narrations regarding the division of preemption based on the extent of ownership or the number of individuals. If we say that he shares with him, and he pardons him for the first, he would have one-third of the property in one of the two views, and in the other, three-eighths, with the remainder for his partner. If he does not pardon him for the first, he has half of its one-sixth in one of the two views, and in the other, its one-eighth, with the remainder for his partner. If the partner sells him the share in three equal contracts, his ruling is the same as if he had sold it to three individuals, based on what we have explained. He is entitled to what they are entitled to, and for the preemptor here is the same as what he has with the three. And Allah knows best.

Section: If a house is between three people, and one of them appoints his partner as an agent to sell his share along with his [own] share, and he sells them both to one man, then their partner has the right of preemption in both. Is he entitled to take one of the two shares without the other? There are two views: the first is that he has that right, because there are two owners, so they are two sales, and he has the right to take the share of one of them, just as if they had undertaken the contract themselves. The second is that he does not have that right, because the transaction is one, and taking one of them would constitute partitioning the transaction for the purchaser, so it is not permitted, as if they were for one man. If a man appoints another man as an agent to purchase half of the share of one of the partners, and he buys the entire share for himself and for his principal, then his partner has the right to take the share of one of them, because they are two purchasers, so it resembles the case where they had undertaken the contract. The difference between this case and the one before it is that taking one of the two shares does not lead to