Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/237)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

over the heirs? The answer is: No, because it passed without consideration and by compulsion.

Another example: if the partner gives his share as a gift to someone, may the pre-emptor take it? According to the author’s view, he may not take it, because it was transferred without consideration.

If the partner gives his share in charity to the poor, his co-owner has no right of pre-emption, because it was transferred without consideration. Likewise, if he dedicates it as an endowment for the poor, the co-owner may not take it by pre-emption, because it was transferred without consideration. But if he gives it as payment of rent—for example, the partner owes a substantial amount of rent and says to the one entitled to it, “I give you my share in this land,” and the latter accepts—does the pre-emptor have the right of pre-emption? Yes, he does, because rent is paid in money; thus, it was transferred for consideration.

However, the more correct view is that, when ownership is transferred without consideration, there is no right of pre-emption if the transfer is compulsory; but if it is voluntary, the right of pre-emption applies. Based on this stronger view, if the share passes through inheritance, may the partner exercise pre-emption against the heirs? No, because it passed by compulsion.

But if the partner gives his share as a gift to someone, may his co-owner exercise pre-emption? According to the stronger view, yes, he may. But what would the price be? If the donee says, “You cannot take from me, without compensation, what I acquired as a gift,” we say: its value is to be assessed by qualified experts. If they determine that its value is such-and-such, we say to the co-owner: if you take it for this value, then you have the right; otherwise, you have no right.

His statement, “if it is transferred”: the context would require him to say, “if it is transferred” in the feminine form, because he said, “the taking of a share”; yet he referred back to “share” according to its meaning rather than its grammatical form.

يشفع؟ الجواب: لا؛ لأنه انتقل بغير عوض على وجه قهري. مثال آخر: وهب الشريك نصيبه لشخص، فهل للشفيع أن يأخذه؟ على كلام المؤلف ليس له أن يأخذه؛ لأنه انتقل بغير عوض. ولو تصدق الشريك بحصته على الفقراء فليس لشريكه أن يشفع؛ لأنه انتقل بغير عوض، وكذا لو أوقفه على الفقراء فليس له أن يأخذه بالشفعة؛ لأنه انتقل بغير عوض، أما لو جعله أجرة، بأن كان الشريك عليه أجور كثيرة فقال لمن له الأجرة: أنا أعطيك نصيبي من هذه الأرض، فقبل، فهل للشفيع أن يشفع؟ نعم له أن يشفع؛ لأن الأجرة دراهم، فانتقلت بعوض. ولكن القول الراجح أنه إذا انتقلت بغير عوض، فإن كان قهرياً فلا شفعة، وإن كان اختيارياً ففيه الشفعة، وبناء على هذا القول الراجح إذا انتقل بإرث، فهل للشريك أن يشفع على الورثة؟ لا؛ لأنه انتقل على وجه قهري. ولو وهب الشريك نصيبه لشخص فهل لشريكه أن يشفع؟ على القول الراجح نعم له أن يشفع، ولكن كيف يكون الثمن؟ إذا قال الموهوب له: لا يمكن أن تأخذ مني ما ملكته بالهبة بدون عوض فنقول: تُقَدَّر قيمته من لدن أهل الخبرة فإذا قالوا: قيمته كذا، قلنا للشريك: إن أخذته بهذه القيمة فلك الحق وإلا فلا حق لك. وقوله: «فإن انتقل» مقتضى السياق أن يقول: فإن انتقلت، لأنه قال: «انتزاع حصة» فأعاد الضمير على «حصة» باعتبار معناها لا لفظها.