al-Khiraqi is that there is no preemption in it; for he did not address any issues other than sale in all of his discussed matters. This is the view of Abu Bakr, and it is also the position of al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion; Ibn al-Mundhir related this from them and favored it. Ibn Hamid said: Preemption is mandatory in it. This is also the position of Ibn Shubruma, al-Harith al-'Ukli, Malik, Ibn Abi Layla, and al-Shafi'i. Then they differed regarding with what he takes it. Ibn Shubruma, Malik, and Ibn Abi Layla said: He takes the share at its value. The Judge (al-Qadi) said: This is the analogy of Ibn Hamid's view, because if we were to make the dower of a peer (mahr al-mithl) mandatory, we would be evaluating the private parts (al-bud') against strangers, and we would be harming the preemptor, because the dower of a peer varies with the stipulated amount, due to people's leniency regarding it by custom, unlike a sale. Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far said that Ibn Hamid said: If the share was a dowry, compensation in a khul', or a consolation gift (mut'a) in divorce, the preemptor takes it for the amount of the woman's dower. This is the view of al-'Ukli and al-Shafi'i, because he came to own the share for a substitute that has no equivalent, so it is necessary to revert to the value of the substitute when taking it by preemption, just as if he had sold it for consideration. They argued for his taking it by preemption on the grounds that it is real estate owned through a contract of exchange, so it resembles a sale. Our argument is that it is owned without wealth, so it resembles that which is gifted or inherited. Furthermore, taking it for the dower of a peer is impossible for the reason mentioned by Malik, and taking it by value is impossible because it is not the consideration for the share, so it is not permissible to take it by it, like inherited property. Thus, taking it becomes impossible, and because it has no consideration that can be taken, it resembles a gift or inheritance and differs from a sale, for in a sale it is possible to take it for its consideration. If we say that it is taken by preemption, and the husband divorces before consummation after the preemptor has waived his right, he takes back half of what he settled upon her, because it is present in her hand in its specific nature. If he divorces her after the preemptor has taken it, he takes back half of its value, because her ownership has ceased, so it is as if she had sold it. If he divorces her before the preemptor learns [of the transaction], then...