Similarly, if he leases out the share that he purchased, does the right of pre-emption lapse or not? According to the school, the lease is annulled, and the pre-emptor takes it by pre-emption. The correct view, however, is that the lease is not annulled but remains in force; the pre-emptor is entitled to the rent from the time he takes it by pre-emption.

For example, one of two partners sells his share to a third party, and the third party immediately leases it out, saying to someone, “I lease you my share for five years.” According to the school, the lease is annulled, because the pre-emptor’s right takes precedence over the tenant’s right.

The second view is that it is not annulled, and that the pre-emptor is entitled to the rent from the time he takes it by pre-emption. Thus, if we suppose that he takes it after one month, the rent for the remainder of the five-year term belongs to the pre-emptor. This is because the purchaser leased the share while it was his property; the lease is valid, and it is a binding contract. When this man has undertaken a permitted disposition through a binding contract, we cannot deprive the tenant of his right. Rather, we say to the tenant: you may remain, but from the time the pre-emptor takes it, the rent belongs to the pre-emptor. There is no doubt that this is closer to justice.

His statement, “Nor does pre-emption lapse through a bequest,” means that if the purchaser disposes of it by bequest, the right of pre-emption does not lapse. Thus, the author, may Allah have mercy on him, has mentioned three matters by which the right of pre-emption is forfeited, and one matter by which it is not forfeited.

An example is that two men are partners in a piece of land, and one of them sells his share to someone. As soon as the purchaser acquires it, he bequeaths it, saying, “I bequeath that the share I purchased be made an endowment for students of knowledge.” The right of pre-emption does not