Section: The ruling regarding a person with permanent insanity is the same as the ruling regarding a minor, because he is placed under interdiction for his own benefit. The same applies to the spendthrift for that reason. As for one who has fainted, there is no guardianship over him, and his ruling is the ruling of the absentee and the insane; his recovery is awaited. As for the bankrupt, he has the right to take [the share] through preemption or waive it, and his creditors do not have the right to take it, because ownership is not established for them in his properties before their division. Nor can he be compelled to take it through preemption, because it is a commutative contract, so he is not forced into it, like other commutative contracts. They do not have the right to compel him to waive it, because it is the waiver of a right, and he cannot be compelled to do so. This is the same whether or not there is a benefit for him in taking it, because he takes it upon his own liability, and he is not under interdiction regarding his liability. However, they may prevent him from paying his wealth for its price, because their rights are attached to his wealth; so he is like one who purchases a share other than this on his own liability. Whenever he acquires the share taken through preemption, the rights of the creditors attach to it, whether he took it with their consent or otherwise, because it is his wealth, so it is like that which he earns. As for the mukatab (emancipated slave under a contract of manumission), he has the right to take or leave it, and his master has no right to object to him, because the transaction occurs on his behalf, not his master's. As for the slave permitted to engage in trade, he has the right to take it through preemption because he is permitted to purchase. If he waives it, his waiver is not valid, because the ownership belongs to his master, and he was not permitted to nullify his rights. If the master waives it, it lapses, and the slave does not have the right to take it, because the master has the authority to place him under interdiction, and because the one entitled to the right has waived it, so it lapses by his waiver.

Section: If a share in a partnership involving mudaraba capital is sold, the agent has the right to take it through preemption if there is a benefit in it. If he leaves it, the capital provider has the right to take it, because the mudaraba capital is his property. The agent's waiver is not valid, because the ownership belongs to another, so his waiver is not valid, like one who is permitted to trade. If the mudarib (agent) purchases a share in the capital provider's partnership using the mudaraba capital, does the capital provider have a right of preemption in it? There are two views, based on the capital provider's purchase using mudaraba capital, which we have mentioned.