a kind of tampering with Allah’s rulings; hence it—that is, the legal stratagem—is more serious. One who resorts to such stratagems possesses a trait of the Jews, just as one who breaks a promise possesses a trait of hypocrisy. Thus, if any Muslim is told, “You have a characteristic of the Jews,” he will become angry and indignant, though he may possess this characteristic without realizing it.

If he resorts to a legal stratagem, does the right lapse? The answer is: No, it does not lapse. Rather, whenever it becomes apparent that a stratagem has been used in the matter, the co-owner may exercise the right of pre-emption.

“The right of pre-emption is established for a co-owner in land subject to compulsory partition; it extends to its plantings and buildings, but not to its fruit or crops. Thus, a neighbour has no right of pre-emption, . . .”

His statement, “is established,” means: the right of pre-emption.

His statement, “for a co-owner in land subject to compulsory partition”: the implication of “for a co-owner” is that a neighbour has no right of pre-emption, which he explicitly states in the words, “Thus, a neighbour has no right of pre-emption.”

His statement, “in land,” excludes a co-owner in something other than land, such as a co-owner in a car, a shop, or the like. Such a person has no right of pre-emption if his partner sells his share to someone else.

His statement, “subject to compulsory partition,” excludes land that is not subject to compulsory partition. What is meant by “subject to compulsory partition” is that, if one of the co-owners requests partition, it is enforced; otherwise, the land is not subject to compulsory partition. The co-owners may divide it whenever they wish, and they may remain co-owners whenever they wish.

It is understood from his statement, “subject to compulsory partition,” that some land must be divided and a co-owner may be compelled to agree to its partition, whereas other land is not so. What, then, is the governing criterion?