Section: If a house is owned by three people, and one of them enters into a mudarabah contract (speculative partnership) with one of his partners for one thousand, and with it he purchases half of the third partner's share, preemption is not established for it in one of the two perspectives. This is because one of the two partners is the owner of the capital (rabb al-mal) and the other is the agent (al-'amil), so they are like partners in merchandise; thus, neither of them is entitled to preemption against the other. If the third party sells the remainder of his share to a foreigner, preemption is entitled among them in fifths: the owner of the capital is entitled to two-fifths, the agent to two-fifths, and the mudarabah capital to one-fifth, based on the one-sixth share it possesses. Thus, the mudarabah capital is treated like an additional partner, because its ruling is distinct from the capital of each of the other two.

Section: If the house is owned by three people in thirds, and a foreigner buys the share of one of them, and one of the two partners demands preemption [and says: "I only bought it for your partner." This claim does not affect the amount of preemption he is entitled to], because the preemption is between the two partners in halves, regardless of whether the foreigner bought it for himself or for the other partner. If the one demanding preemption abandons his right to it based on this statement, and it later turns out he was lying, his preemption does not lapse. If he takes half of the sold property for that reason, and then it becomes clear that the buyer was lying and the partner pardons his preemption, he [the first partner] may take his share of the preemption; for his limiting himself to taking the half was based on the buyer's report, so it does not affect the lapse of the preemption, and he is entitled to take the remainder due to his partner's pardon of it. If he refuses to take the remainder, his entire preemption lapses, because he does not possess the right to split the buyer's transaction. It is possible that his right to the half he took does not lapse, and his taking of it does not become void, because the buyer admitted to that which entailed his entitlement to it, so it does not become void by his retraction of his admission. If the partner denies that the purchase was for him and pardons his preemption, while the buyer persists in admitting it for the partner, then the preemptor may take the whole, because there is no one disputing his entitlement.