If the land belonged to two people and they wished to partition the well and the tree without the land, it would not be a forced partition. Likewise, for land containing trees, if the trees were partitioned without the land, it would not be a forced partition. If they partitioned it with its trees, it would be a forced partition, because the trees enter as a dependent of the land, so the whole becomes like one thing. For this reason, the right of pre-emption (shufʿah) applies to it when a part of the land is sold with its trees. If that is partitioned without the land, it becomes a principal in the partition and is no longer a dependent of one thing, so it becomes like distinct items of separate houses or shops. For this reason, the right of pre-emption does not apply to it if it is sold individually. Every partition that is not mandatory, if they both agree to it, is a sale, and its ruling is the ruling of a sale.

1881 - Issue: He said: (And when it is partitioned, the shares are cast, and each one gets what his share falls upon, unless they both agree, in which case each one gets what he is pleased with.)

The sum of this is that partition is of two types: forced partition and consensual partition. We have already mentioned that a forced partition is that in which balancing is possible without compensation (radd). It consists of four categories: first, that the shares are equal and the value of the parts of the partitioned object is equal; second, that the shares are equal and the value of the parts is different; third, that the shares are different and the value of the parts is equal; fourth, that the shares are different and the value is different (1). As for the first, it is like land between six people, each of them having one-sixth of it, and the value of the parts of the land is equal. You balance this by area into six equal parts, because balancing it by area necessitates balancing it by value, due to the equality of its parts in value. Then lots are drawn between them, and however they are drawn, it is permissible according to the apparent statement of Ahmad. For he said in the narration of Abū Dāwūd: If he wishes, using slips (riqāʿ), and if he wishes, using signet rings (khawātīm), casting them into the lap of someone who is not present, and each one has a specific ring. Then it is said: "Bring out a ring for this share." Whoever's ring comes out, it is for him. On this basis, if lots were drawn with pebbles or otherwise, it is permissible. Our colleagues chose in the matter of lots that he should write equal slips equal to the number of shares. Here, he is given the choice between bringing out the names for the shares or between