its right by preemption; thus it remains under his ownership. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent a person from having a right established against himself due to the attachment of someone else's right to it. Do you not see that if a pledged slave commits a crime against another slave belonging to his master, the master is entitled to the indemnity for the crime against his own slave due to the attachment of the pledgee's right to him? If it were not pledged, the right would not have attached to him. Once this is established, the partner who is the purchaser may take [only] the portion of his share or waive his right. If the purchaser says to him, "I have dropped my preemption, so take it all or leave it," the partner is not bound by that, and the purchaser's waiver is invalid, because his ownership has become settled upon the extent of his share; this is analogous to the case of two preemptors who take via preemption and then one of them waives his right. Similarly, if one of the two preemptors is present and takes the entire share by preemption, then the other arrives, he has the right to take half of that. If the first one says, "Take the whole or leave it, for I have dropped my preemption," he does not have the right to do so.

If it is said: "This is a partition of the transaction against the purchaser," we say: "This partition was necessitated by his entry into the contract, so it has become [as if he consented to it], as we said regarding the present preemptor when he takes the entire share, and as if he had purchased a share and a sword."

881 - Issue: He said: "If one of them abandons his preemption, the other does not have the right to take anything except the whole or to leave it."

The summary of this is that if the share is between [multiple] preemptors, and some of them waive their right, the remainder do not have the right to take anything but the entirety or to leave the entirety, and they do not have the right to take a part. Ibn al-Mundhir said: "Everyone I recall from among the scholars has reached a consensus on this." This is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). This is because taking a part involves harming the purchaser by partitioning the transaction against him, and harm is not removed by another harm, because...