and have him detained. Yet the buyer may say: “This is a man known for delaying payment, so I will not accept him unless he provides a solvent guarantor.”

It is also a condition that the buyer from whom the share is to be taken must be able to pursue the claimant of pre-emption for payment. Thus, suppose that the claimant of pre-emption is one of those in authority whom it is not possible to pursue, and that the price is deferred. For instance, a co-owner sells his share to someone for one thousand riyals, payable after one year, and the claimant of pre-emption wishes to take the share at its deferred price, but this claimant is one of those in authority whom it is not possible to pursue. What is the ruling? We say: Provide a solvent guarantor whom it is possible to pursue; otherwise, you have no right of pre-emption.

It is well known that, in the case of such a solvent yet procrastinating person who is protected by his authority, no one would dare tell him, “Provide a guarantor.” According to customary practice, this is impracticable. Therefore, the buyer may prevent him from taking it by pre-emption, because he cannot pursue him for payment when the term falls due, nor can he require him to provide a solvent guarantor.

The same applies if the buyer cannot pursue the claimant of pre-emption because he is his father. A son cannot pursue his father except for obligatory maintenance. Thus, if his father owes him a debt, he cannot pursue him for it; even if he brings his claim before a judge, the judge will not hear the case—except in one matter: obligatory maintenance. So, if the claimant of pre-emption is the buyer’s father, and the buyer says, “My father cannot take it, because I cannot pursue him for payment,” do we say that he may refuse, or do we say that since a father may take ownership of whatever he wishes from his child’s property, the child has no right to refuse? The latter, for if it were supposed—