The prioritization of warding off the harm of a Muslim against a Muslim does not necessitate the prioritization of warding off the harm of a Dhimmi; for the right of the Muslim is weightier and his preservation is more worthy. Furthermore, the establishment of preemption in the area of consensus, contrary to the principle, is in consideration of the right of the Muslim partner, and the Dhimmi is not in the same status as the Muslim, so he remains upon the requirements of the principle. Preemption is established for the Muslim against a Dhimmi due to the generality of the obligating evidences, and because if it is established for a Muslim against a Muslim, despite his great sanctity and the consideration of his right, then it is more fitting and appropriate that it be established against a Dhimmi despite his lowliness.

Section: It is established for a Dhimmi against a Dhimmi due to the generality of the reports, and because they are equal in religion and sanctity, thus it is established for one of them against the other, like the Muslim against the Muslim. We know of no disagreement regarding this. If they transact with wine or pork, and the preemptor takes it by that, what they have done shall not be annulled. If the act of taking possession took place between the two transacting parties without the preemptor, and they brought their dispute to us, we would not rule for him with preemption. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu al-Khattab said: If they transact with wine, and we say: "It is wealth for them," we rule for them with preemption. Abu Hanifah said: Preemption is established if the price is wine, because it is wealth for them, so it resembles what it would be if they transacted with dirhams; however, if the preemptor is a Dhimmi, he takes it for its equivalent, and if he is a Muslim, he takes it for the value of the wine. Our evidence is that it is a sale contracted with wine, so preemption is not established in it, just as if it were between two Muslims. Moreover, it is a contract for a prohibited price, so it resembles a sale with pork or carrion. We do not concede that wine is wealth for them, for Allah Almighty prohibited it, just as He prohibited pork, and their belief in its permissibility does not make it wealth, just as it is with pork. Their contract is not annulled if they take possession, because we do not interfere in what they have done regarding what they believe in their religion, as long as they do not bring their dispute to us before its completion; had they brought their dispute to us before taking possession, we would have annulled it.

Section: As for the people of innovation, whoever is judged to be a Muslim has the right of preemption, because he is a Muslim, so preemption is established for him, like the sinner through actions. Also, the generality of the evidences dictates its establishment for every partner, so he is included