Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/231)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “the taking,” indicates that the matter is not optional: it is taken from him by compulsion. And that is indeed the case.

His statement, “one’s partner’s share from the one to whom it has been transferred,” shows us that the author does not permit the taking of one’s neighbour’s property and that a neighbour has no right of pre-emption. Discussion of this will come, Allah willing. But the word “partner” excludes the neighbour, because a neighbour is not a partner.

His statement, “from the one to whom it has been transferred,” indicates that there must be a transfer of ownership. Thus, if he leases it out, there is no right of pre-emption. For example, two men jointly own a piece of land, and one of them leases his share of it to a third person. In this case, the other partner has no right of pre-emption, because ownership has not been transferred; only the usufruct has been transferred. This remains so even if the term is lengthy, such as the arrangement known as ḥukrah, whereby he leases him the land in perpetuity, or for a thousand years, or something similar. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that there is no right of pre-emption in such a case, because ownership has not been transferred; only the usufruct has been transferred.

His statement, “for financial consideration, at the price upon which the contract was concluded and settled”: “for consideration” qualifies his statement, “it has been transferred.” It excludes a case in which it is transferred without consideration, whether that transfer without consideration occurs through compulsory or voluntary acquisition. For example, if a partner dies leaving a son who inherits from him, ownership then passes to the son without consideration. Therefore, his partner has no right to exercise pre-emption. This is a compulsory transfer, meaning that ownership passes to the heir by compulsion and enters his ownership against his will. Even if the heir wished to renounce it and said, “I do not want my share of the estate,” he would not be able to do so, because Allah

وقوله: «انتزاع» يفيد أن الأمر ليس اختيارياً وأنه ينزع منه قهراً، وهو كذلك. وقوله: «حصة شريكه ممن انتقلت إليه» أفادنا المؤلف أنه لا ينتزع ملك جاره وأنه لا شفعة للجار، وسيأتي الكلام على ذلك ـ إن شاء الله ـ، لكن كلمة (شريك) تُخرج الجار؛ لأن الجار ليس بشريك. وقوله: «ممن انتقلت إليه» يفيد أنه لا بد من نقل المُلك، فلو آجرها فإنه لا شفعة، مثال ذلك: رجلان شريكان في أرض أجَّر أحدهما نصيبه منها لشخص ثالث، فهنا لا شفعة للشريك؛ لأن ملكه لم ينتقل وإنما انتقل النفع فقط، حتى ولو طالت المدة كالصُّبرة المعروفة بالحكورة، وهي أن يؤجره الأرض دائماً وأبداً أو لمدة ألف سنة أو ما أشبه ذلك، فظاهر كلام المؤلف: أنه لا شفعة في هذا؛ لأن الملك لم ينتقل وإنما انتقل النفع. قوله: «بعوض مالي بثمنه الذي استقر عليه العقد» «بعوض» متعلق بقوله: «انتقلت»، وخرج به ما لو انتقلت بغير عوض، ولا فرق بين أن يكون انتقالها بغير عوض بملك قهري أو اختياري، فمثلاً: لو أن الشريك مات وله ابن يرثه، فهنا انتقل الملك إلى الابن بغير عوض، إذاً ليس لشريكه أن يُشَفِّع، وهذا الانتقال انتقال قهري، يعني أن الملك انتقل إلى الوارث قهراً، فيدخل في ملك الوارث قهراً عليه حتى لو أراد الوارث أن يتخلى وقال: أنا لا أريد نصيبي من التركة، فإنه لا يمكنه ذلك؛ لأن الله