—that the father said, “I do not wish to take it by pre-emption; rather, I wish to take it by exercising my right of ownership.” Does he have the right to take ownership of it or not? He does. Thus, if he takes it by pre-emption, the son is better off, because if he takes it by pre-emption, he will pay the price and will not take it by force.
Therefore, in addition to our saying that a solvent person is one who is able to fulfill his obligation by virtue of his means and his accessibility, it is a condition that the buyer suffer no harm because he is unable to pursue him for payment. The example to which no objection applies is where the claimant of pre-emption is one of those in authority whom it is not possible to pursue.
His statement, “And its opposite is covered by a solvent guarantor,” means the opposite of a solvent claimant. That is, if the claimant of pre-emption is not solvent and the price is deferred, he may take it even if he is poor, on condition that he provides a solvent guarantor. Here we ask: is what is meant a personal surety or a financial guarantor? The latter, because it is more beneficial: he undertakes to pay the debt. Accordingly, suretyship here means financial guarantee.
It was mentioned previously that there is a difference between financial guarantee and suretyship. However, what is intended here by suretyship is financial guarantee—the type which ordinary people among us call a kafīl gharām, meaning one who guarantees payment.
“Where there is a disagreement and no evidence, the buyer’s statement is accepted. Thus, if he says, ‘I bought it for one thousand,’ the claimant of pre-emption takes it for that amount, even if the seller establishes a higher price.”
His statement, “Where there is a disagreement and no evidence, the buyer’s statement is accepted,” means that if the claimant of pre-emption and the buyer differ, such that the claimant says, “The value of the share is one thousand,” while the buyer says, “Rather, its value is one thousand one hundred,” then the buyer’s statement is accepted. This is because the buyer is the one who bears the loss: if the claimant’s statement were accepted, the share would be taken from him for less than he paid. Therefore, the buyer’s statement is accepted. Moreover, it is taken from him through compulsory acquisition, and when it is taken from him by compulsion, the determining factor in—