because he is drawing a benefit to himself, which is the availability of the right of preemption for him. If his testimony is rejected, then he waives his right of preemption, and then he repeats that testimony, it is not accepted, because it was rejected on account of suspicion, and it is not accepted after the reason for it has been removed, like the testimony of an immoral person (fasiq) if it is rejected and he then repents and repeats it; it is not accepted. If he did not testify until he had waived it, his testimony is accepted due to the absence of suspicion, and the purchaser takes an oath alongside his testimony. If there is no evidence, the statement is that of the denier, supported by his oath. If the claim is against both preemptors together, and they both swear, the right of preemption is established. If one of them swears and the other refuses, we look at the one who swore; if he affirms his partner in the preemption that he did not waive it, he does not need an oath, and the preemption is between them, because the right belongs to him; for the preemption becomes fully available to him if his partner’s preemption lapses. If he claims that he waived it, and he refuses [to swear], he is ruled in his favor for the entire preemption. This is the same whether they inherited the preemption or were partners. If an outsider testifies to the waiver of one of the preemptors, and an oath is required from him before the waiver of the other, he takes the oath and takes everything by preemption. If it is after it, the purchaser swears, and the right of preemption lapses. If there are three preemptors, and two of them testify against the third regarding the waiver after they themselves have waived it, it is accepted. If they testified before [they waived it], it is rejected. If they testified after one of them waived it and before the other, the testimony of the one who did not waive is rejected, and the testimony of the one who waived is accepted. If the seller testifies to the waiver of the preemptor after receiving the price, his testimony is accepted; if it is before it, there are two views: one is that it is accepted because they are both the same to him. The second is that it is not accepted because it is possible that he intended by that [to facilitate the fulfillment of the price; for the purchaser takes it from the preemptor, so it is easy for him to fulfill it, or it becomes impossible for the purchaser to fulfill it due to his bankruptcy], and thus he becomes entitled to reclaim the sold item. If he testifies for his mukatab (contractual slave) regarding the waiver of his preemptor, or testifies to the purchase of something in which his mukatab has a right of preemption, it is not accepted; because