has a stronger claim by virtue of his proximity,” and that he said, “The neighbour has a stronger claim to pre-emption over his neighbour’s property,” and, “The associate has a stronger claim than the co-owner.”

They also argued by analogy that the neighbour’s property adjoins the property being sold, since the ground occupied by the wall separating the two houses is included in the sale and adjoins the property of the claimant to pre-emption. This resembles the case of two co-owners: since each one’s property is connected to the other’s, each is entitled to pre-emption.

None of this is sound. The Prophet’s statements, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “The neighbour has a stronger claim by virtue of his proximity” and “The neighbour has a stronger claim to pre-emption over his neighbour’s property,” do not specify what he has a stronger claim to. They may refer to assisting him in securing his recognised rights and offering the property to him when one wishes to sell. Alternatively, “neighbour” may mean a co-owner because of their close connection, for the Arabs call a neighbour a partner, and call a wife both a partner and a neighbour because husband and wife share a home. Since the hadith admits these two interpretations, it cannot properly be understood as granting the neighbour a stronger claim to pre-emption, when the Prophet explicitly denied him pre-emption by saying, “Once boundaries have been established and access routes assigned, there is no pre-emption.” The hadiths should not be treated as contradictory so long as they can be reconciled through a plausible interpretation.

Some who argued against them said: “His statements, ‘The neighbour has a stronger claim by virtue of his proximity’ and ‘The neighbour has a stronger claim to pre-emption over his neighbour’s property,’ cannot be understood as establishing an enforceable right of pre-emption if ‘neighbour’ is taken literally rather than as referring to a co-owner. For he must mean either that the neighbour has a stronger claim than the co-owner, or that he has a stronger claim than an outsider who is neither a neighbour nor a co-owner. He cannot mean that the neighbour has a stronger claim than the co-owner, since no one holds that pre-emption belongs to the neighbour to the exclusion of the co-owner. Nor can he mean that the neighbour has a stronger claim than a non-neighbour, since no one holds that an outsider who is neither a neighbour nor a co-owner is entitled to pre-emption.”

This, however, is not a sound argument, since he may mean that the neighbour has a stronger claim than the purchaser. The argument against them is therefore only what we have already stated: the hadiths should not be treated as contradictory so long as it is possible to reconcile