This is the apparent school of al-Shafi'i. If the first one refrains from making the claim until his two companions arrive, or says: "I will only take the amount of my share," there are two views regarding this. One is that his right is voided, because he had the power to take the whole and left it, so he resembles the one who is alone. The second is that it is not voided, because he left it due to an excuse, which is the fear of the arrival of the absent one, so he may extract it from him; and leaving it for an excuse does not void the preemption, as evidenced by the case where the purchaser reveals a high price, so he leaves it for that reason, and then the truth proves otherwise.

If the first one waives his preemption, the preemption is concentrated in favor of his two companions. When the first of them arrives, he has the right to take the whole, based on what we have mentioned regarding the first one. If the first one takes it via preemption, and then returns what he took due to a defect, the same rule applies. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. It is narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that it is not concentrated in their favor, and they have no right to take the share of the first one; because he did not waive it, he only returned his share due to a defect, so it resembles the case where he returns it to the purchaser via sale or gift. Our argument is that the preemptor annulled his ownership and returned to the purchaser via the first cause, so his partner had the right to take it, just as if he had waived it. It differs from his returning it via another cause, because he returned something other than the first ownership to which the preemption was attached.

Section: If the second arrives after the first has taken it, and he takes half of the share from him, and they divide it, and then the third arrives and demands his preemption and takes by it, the division is voided. This is because when this third one takes via preemption, it is as if he were a partner at the time of the division, due to the establishment of his right; for this reason, if the purchaser sells the property and then the preemptor arrives, he has the right to void the sale. If it is said: "How can the division be valid while their third partner is absent?" We say: It is possible that he authorized the division before the sale, or before he knew of it, or the two partners referred the matter to the judge, and they demanded from him the division on behalf of the absent one, so he divided it for them, and the absent one remained with his right to preemption. If it is said: "How can their division of the share be valid while the right of the third one is established in it?" We say: The establishment of the right of preemption does not prevent disposal, as evidenced by the fact that its sale and gift are valid by others, and the preemptor possesses the right to void it; it is the same here. Once this is established, if the third arrives and finds one of his two partners absent, he takes from the present one a third of what is in his hand, because that is the amount he is entitled to. Then, if the judge rules in his favor against the absent one, he takes a third of what is in his hand as well, and if he does not rule in his favor, he waits for the absent one until he arrives, because it is a case of an excuse.