We do not know that ownership is his before acceptance; rather, that is only established upon his acceptance. If he accepts, it becomes clear that it was his. If he rejects, it becomes clear that it belonged to the heirs. The heirs do not have the right to demand [preemption] either, for that same reason. It is possible that they do have the right to demand it, because the base principle is the absence of acceptance and the persistence of the right for them. He differs from the legatee in two respects: first, the base principle is the absence of acceptance from him. Second, it is possible for him to accept and then demand [preemption], unlike the heir, who has no way to do that by which it is known that ownership is established for him or for another. If they demand it, and then the legatee accepts the bequest, the preemption belongs to him, and he requires a demand from him, because it becomes clear that the first demand was made by one who was not entitled to it. If we adopt the first narration and the heirs demand preemption, they have the right to take it. If the legatee accepts, he takes the bequeathed share, not the share subject to preemption, because the bequeathed share only transferred to him after taking it by preemption; thus, it is like the situation if the testator had taken it by preemption during his lifetime. If they do not demand preemption until the legatee accepts, the legatee has no right to preemption, because the sale occurred before the establishment of his ownership and the realization of his partnership. Regarding its establishment for the heirs, there are two views, based on the case where a preemptor sells his share before he knows of his partner’s sale.

Section: If a man purchases a share, then apostatizes and is killed or dies, the preemptor has the right to take it via preemption, because the right was made obligatory by the purchase, and its transfer to the Muslims upon his killing or death does not prevent preemption, just as if he had died while a Muslim and his heirs inherited from him, or his wealth became the property of the Bayt al-Mal (Treasury) due to his having no heirs, in which case the one demanding preemption would be the representative of the Bayt al-Mal.