If he takes it, he pays him [the price], and if he says: "I do not deserve it," there are three views regarding it. The first is that it remains in the hand of the preemptor until the buyer claims it, whereupon it is handed over to him, just as if he confessed a house to him and he denied it. The second is that the judge takes it and preserves it for its owner until the buyer claims it, and whenever he claims it, it is handed over to him. The third is that it is said to him: "Either you take possession of it, or you exonerate [the preemptor] from it," like the master of a mukatab (manumitted slave under a contract) when the mukatab comes to him with the money of the kitaba contract, and he claims it is unlawful. The judge (Al-Qadi) chose this view. This differs from the case of the mukatab because his master demands fulfillment from him other than what he brought to him, so he is not compelled to do so merely by his master's claim that what he brought to him is unlawful; whereas here, he does not demand anything from the preemptor, so it is not appropriate to burden him with an exoneration from that which he does not claim. The first view is more appropriate, God willing.

Section: If he says: "I bought it for so-and-so," and he is present, the judge summons him and questions him. If he confirms it, the purchase is for him, and the preemption is against him. If he says: "This is my property and I did not buy it," the litigation shifts to him. If he denies it, the judge rules the purchase to be for the one who bought it and takes [the share] from him via preemption. If the one for whom the confession was made is absent, the judge takes it and hands it to the preemptor, and the absent person retains his argument (hujja) if he returns, because if we were to suspend the matter of preemption until the arrival of the one for whom the confession was made, it would result in the lapse of preemption, as every buyer would claim it is for an absent person. If he says: "I bought it for my infant son," or "for this infant," and he has guardianship over him, there are two views. The first is that the preemption is not established, because ownership is established for the infant, and preemption is not necessitated by the guardian's confession regarding it, for it is the imposition of a right on the property of a minor by the confession of his guardian. The second is that it is established, because he has the right to buy for him, so his confession regarding it is valid, just as his confession regarding a defect in what he sold is valid. If he claims preemption against him regarding a share, and he says: "This is for absent so-and-so," or "for infant so-and-so," then confesses...