the share from his hand, and the judgment against the absent person was obtained implicitly. If there is no evidence, and the preemptor demands he take an oath, but he refuses, it is possible that judgment be passed against him, because if he had confessed, judgment would have been passed against him; thus, it is the same if he refuses. It is also possible that judgment should not be passed against him, because it would be a judgment against an absent person without evidence or the confession of the one in whose hand the share is.

Section: If one claims preemption against a man regarding a share he purchased, and he says: "He has no ownership in my partnership," then the preemptor must provide evidence that he is a partner. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, Muhammad, and Al-Shafi'i. Abu Yusuf said: If it is in his hand, he is entitled to preemption because of it, because the apparent state of possession is ownership. Our argument is that ownership is not established by mere possession, and if the ownership that entitles one to preemption is not established, it is not established [at all], and the mere apparent state is insufficient, just as if he claimed the child of a slave girl who is in his possession. If he claims that the purchaser knows that he is a partner, then the purchaser must take an oath that he does not know that; this is because it is an oath regarding the denial of another's act, so it is based on knowledge, like the oath regarding the denial of a deceased person's debt. If he swears, his claim is rejected, and if he refuses, judgment is passed against him.

Section: If one claims against his partner: "You bought your share from 'Amr, and I have the right of preemption regarding it," and 'Amr confirms this for him, but the partner denies it and says: "Rather, I inherited it from my father." If the claimant produces evidence that it was the property of 'Amr, preemption is not established by that. Muhammad said: It is established, and it is said to him: Either you surrender it and take the price, or you return it to the seller, and the preemptor takes it from him; because they both testified to the ownership of 'Amr, it is as if they testified to the sale. Our argument is that they did not testify to the sale, and the confession of 'Amr against