the opinion of Abu Hanifa; because the contract becomes binding in the sale of real estate before taking possession, the sold item enters into the buyer's ownership and his liability, and it is permissible for him to dispose of it by the contract itself; thus it is as if the buyer had taken possession of it. Al-Qadi said: He does not have the right to take it from the seller, and the judge compels the buyer to take possession, then the preemptor takes it from him. This is one of the two opinions of the companions of Al-Shafi'i, because the preemptor buys the share from the buyer, so he does not take it from anyone else. They based this on the principle that the sale is not complete except by possession; so if possession is missed, the contract is voided, and preemption lapses.

Section: If the seller acknowledges the sale and the buyer denies it, there are two opinions regarding it. One of them is that the preemptor has the right to take it by preemption, and this is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and Al-Muzani. The second is that he has no right to take it by it, and this was supported by Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far in his "Masa'il" (Issues). It is the opinion of Malik and Ibn Shurayh, because preemption is a branch of the sale, and if the sale is not established, its branch is not established; and also because the preemptor only takes the share from the buyer, and if he denies the sale, it is not possible to take it from him. The reasoning for the first opinion is that the seller has acknowledged two rights: a right for the preemptor and a right for the buyer. If the buyer's right lapses due to his denial, the preemptor's right is established, just as if one acknowledged a house belonging to two men, and one of them denied it. Furthermore, he has acknowledged to the preemptor that he is entitled to take this house, and the preemptor is claiming that, so it is necessary to accept his acknowledgment, just as if he acknowledged that it was his property. Based on this, the preemptor takes possession from the seller and delivers the price to him, and the preemptor's liability (darak) remains with the seller, because the taking of possession is from him, and the purchase has not been established in the right of the buyer. Neither the preemptor nor the seller has the right to summon the buyer to court so that the sale may be established in his right and the responsibility (uhda) may rest upon him; because the seller's purpose is the price, and it has been obtained from the preemptor, and the preemptor's purpose is to take the share and secure the liability, and it has been obtained from the seller, so there is no benefit in litigation. If it is said: Is it not the case that if one claims a debt against a man, and another says, "I will pay you the debt which you claim, and do not litigate with him," he is not obliged to accept it, so why do you not say the same here? We say: In