as opposed to the pre-emptor, because it returns as it was before the sale, and no partnership of another party has been newly introduced. The second is that the pre-emptor is more entitled. This was mentioned by Abu al-Khattab, because his right is earlier, so he is more deserving. This is explained by the fact that the seller's right is established by the interdiction (hajr), while the pre-emptor's right is established by the sale. Furthermore, his right is more confirmed because he is entitled to extract the share from the buyer and from whomever [the buyer] transferred it to, whereas the seller's right only relates to the physical asset as long as it is in the hands of the buyer. The harm to him is not removed by returning it to the seller, evidenced by the fact that if the buyer sold it to his seller, gifted it to him, or annulled the sale with him, the pre-emptor's right would not be extinguished. Moreover, the seller is only entitled to reclaim a physical asset to which the right of another has not attached, and here the right of the pre-emptor has attached to it. The third view is that if the pre-emptor has demanded the pre-emption, he is more entitled, because his right is confirmed here by the demand; but if he has not demanded it, the seller is more entitled. The companions of al-Shafi'i have two views similar to the first two, and they have a third view: that the price is taken from the pre-emptor and allocated to the seller, thus combining both rights. For the pre-emptor's interest is in the physical share subject to pre-emption, and the seller's interest is in its price, and this is achieved by what we have mentioned. This is not sound, however, because the seller's right is established in the physical asset, so once the matter moves to the obligation of the price, it attaches to the buyer's liability, thus making him equal to the [other] creditors regarding it.

Section: If the sold item is game (wild animal), and the buyer becomes insolvent while the seller is in a state of ihram (consecration for pilgrimage or umrah), he may not reclaim it, because he would be acquiring the game, which is not permitted while in ihram, just like purchasing game. If the seller is in a state of hill (not in ihram), is within the sacred precinct (haram), and the game is in the hill, then the buyer becomes insolvent, the seller may reclaim it; for the prohibition of the haram only applies to the game that is within it, and this is not part of its game, so it is not prohibited. If a person in ihram becomes insolvent, and among his property is game whose seller is in a state of hill, he may take it, because the prohibitive factor is not present in his case.

Section: If he becomes insolvent, and in his possession is a physical asset whose seller's debt is deferred, and we say that the debt does not become due