rights of ownership, then the right of pre-emption applies. But if they share no common right, then there is no right of pre-emption. This is the stronger view concerning the neighbour’s right of pre-emption, and the hadith, “The neighbour has the greater right to what adjoins him,” (1) is understood accordingly. This was the view preferred by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

Some scholars said that a neighbour has the right of pre-emption without qualification, based on the hadith, “The neighbour has the greater right to what adjoins him,” meaning, that which is adjacent to him.

His statement, “for a co-owner in land,” excludes a co-owner in anything other than land, such as a co-owner in a car, a ship, or merchandise; such a person has no right of pre-emption. For example, if two men jointly own a car and one of them sells his share to another person, then according to the madhhab, the other co-owner has no right of pre-emption, because the joint ownership is not in land. The joint ownership must be in land.

There is a difference of opinion regarding this issue. Some scholars held the same view as the author: that there is no right of pre-emption in anything other than land. Others held that the right of pre-emption applies to everything, except movable property that can be divided, in which case there is no right of pre-emption, because it can be divided without harm—for example, a sack of wheat and the like. This view is stronger, because the effective cause by which the right of pre-emption is established for a co-owner in land is also present in the case of a co-owner in something other than land. Thus, if your co-owner in a car is a good-natured and easy-going man who does not oppose you in anything: whenever the car needs repairs, he repairs it; whenever it needs improvements, he makes them; and if it is involved in an accident, he is accommodating about the matter—then this partner came