And that has ceased with his sale. If he sells some of it, there are two views. One is that it also lapses; because it was deemed entitled based on the entirety of it, so if he sells part of it, what was attached to that regarding the entitlement of preemption lapses, and thus the remainder of it lapses, because it cannot be divided, so its entirety lapses with the lapse of some of it, like marriage and slavery, and as if he had forgiven some of it. The second [view] is that it does not lapse; because there remains of his share that by which he would be entitled to preemption in the entire sold object if he were alone, so it is the same if [a part] remains. The first purchaser has the right of preemption over the second purchaser in the first issue, and in the second [issue] if we say that the first seller's preemption lapses; because he is a partner in the sold object. And if we say: the seller's preemption does not lapse, then he has the right to take the share from the first purchaser. And does the first purchaser have a right of preemption over the second purchaser? There are two views: one is that he has the right of preemption; because he is a partner, for ownership is established for him, he has the right to dispose of it through all types of dispositions, and he is entitled to its growth and benefits, and the entitlement to preemption through it is one of its benefits. The second is that he has no right of preemption; because his ownership is established by it, so preemption cannot be taken through it, and because his ownership is unstable and weak, so he is not entitled to preemption through it due to its weakness. The first is more analogous; for the entitlement to take it from him does not prevent him from being entitled to preemption through it, like the dower (sadaq) before consummation, and the share gifted to a child. According to this, the first purchaser has the right of preemption over the second purchaser, regardless of whether he takes the sold object from him by preemption or not, and the second seller, if he sells some of the share, has [the right] to take from the first purchaser, in one of the two views. As for if the preemptor sells his property before he learns of the first sale, the Qadi said: his preemption also lapses; for what we have mentioned, and because the cause through which he is entitled to preemption has ceased, which is the ownership through which he fears harm; thus, he becomes like one who bought a defective item and did not know of its defect until it ceased or until he sold it. According to this, his ruling is the ruling of one who sells with knowledge, the same whether he sells all of it or part of it. And Abu