Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/236)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

If someone were to ask: “How can it be taken from him by compulsion? Is this not consuming people’s wealth unlawfully?” The answer is: God forbid that it should be an unlawful appropriation of wealth. Unlawfully taking wealth means taking it without right, whereas this property is taken by a right that the Lawgiver has granted him.

If someone were to ask: “What, then, is the basis for the Lawgiver’s giving the partner authority over this purchaser, such that he forcibly takes his property from him?” The answer is that this serves an interest and entails no harm to the purchaser. The purchaser suffers no loss, since the price he paid will be returned to him; he may simply consider it as though he had never purchased it. As for the harm that pre-emption averts, this is because the partner may be an unpleasant co-owner, making matters burdensome for his partner and constantly forcing him into disputes and litigation. Thus, the Lawgiver has given the partner the right to ward off the harm he fears through pre-emption.

If someone were to ask: “If this is the effective cause, and it so happens that the partner sold his share to someone who would be a better co-owner than himself, would you then say that the right of pre-emption lapses?” The answer is: No, we do not negate it, because when a ruling is established on the basis of a cause that is not readily apparent, it remains established even if that cause is not present. The same applies to shortening the prayer while travelling: the effective cause for shortening is hardship, which is generally present. Yet if hardship is absent, the ruling does not cease; rather, a person may shorten the prayer while travelling and break his fast even if there is no hardship. The same applies here.

“If ownership is transferred without consideration, or if its consideration is a bridal dower, a khulʿ settlement, or a settlement for intentional homicide, then there is no right of pre-emption; and it is prohibited to resort to legal stratagems to nullify it.” .......

His statement, “If ownership is transferred without consideration”: if a share is transferred through inheritance, for example, then there is no right of pre-emption. An example is where two men are partners in a piece of land, and one of them dies, so that his share in that land passes to his heirs. Does the other partner have the right of pre-emption

فإذا قال قائل: كيف يؤخذ منه قهراً؟! وهل هذا إلا من أكل أموال الناس بالباطل؟! فيقال: معاذ الله أن يكون من أكل المال بالباطل؛ لأن أخذ المال بالباطل أن يأخذه الإنسان بغير حق، وهذا أخذه بحق جعله الشارع له. فإذا قال قائل: إذاً ما وجه تسليط الشارع الشريك على هذا المشتري حتى ينتزع منه ملكه قهراً؟ فيقال: لما في ذلك من المصلحة، وعدم المضرة على المشتري؛ فالمشتري ليس عليه ضرر؛ لأن ثمنه الذي دفع سوف يدفع إليه، وليقدر أنه لم يشترِ، وأما انتفاء الضرر الذي يحصل بالشفعة فلأن هذا الشريك قد يكون شريكاً سيئ الشركة متعباً لشريكه يحوجه إلى النزاع والخصومة دائماً، فجعل الشارع للشريك أن يدفع ما يخشى من ضرره بالشفعة. فإذا قال قائل: إذا كانت هذه هي العلة وقُدِّر أن الشريك باع على رجل أحسن منه شركة، فهل تسقطون الشفعة؟ فالجواب: لا نسقطها؛ لأن ما ثبت بعلة خفية، فإنه يثبت ولو لم تتحقق العلة، ومثل ذلك القصر في السفر فإن علة القصر هي المشقة غالباً، فإذا زالت المشقة فلا يزول الحكم، بل للإنسان أن يقصر في السفر وأن يفطر ولو لم تكن مشقة، وهنا كذلك. فَإِنِ انْتَقَلَ بَغَيْرِ عِوَضٍ، أَوْ كَانَ عِوَضُهُ صَدَاقاً، أَوْ خُلْعاً، أَوْ صُلْحاً عَنْ دَمِ عَمْدٍ فَلَا شُفْعَةَ وَيَحْرُمُ التَّحَيُّلُ لإسْقَاطِهَا. ....... قوله: «فإن انتقل بغير عوض» فلو انتقل النصيب بميراث ـ مثلاً ـ فلا شفعة، مثاله: رجلان شريكان في أرض، مات أحدهما فانتقل نصيبه في هذه الأرض إلى ورثته، فهل للشريك أن