ten years, on the basis of the hadith reported from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “Whoever possesses something for ten years, it belongs to him.”
Ibn al-Muaddal said that Ibn al-Mājishūn used to uphold the right of pre-emption for someone present for up to forty years, but later revised this to ten years. It has also been related from Mālik that he retains his right of pre-emption, however much time passes, unless he expressly relinquishes it. This is also al-Shāfiʿī’s position. Abū Hanīfa held the opposite view: pre-emption must be claimed immediately; if the pre-emptor does not assert his right as soon as he learns of the sale, he has no right of pre-emption. Someone absent, however, retains his right, however long his absence lasts. The same applies when the pre-emptor is present but the purchaser is absent and an agent purchases the property on his behalf.
Section
If the pre-emptor remains silent and does not assert his right until the purchaser plants trees or builds on the property, or until the prescribed time limit for pre-emption has passed, his right is extinguished and his claim lapses. Ignorance does not excuse him in this matter. This is one of the cases in which ignorance is not accepted as an excuse. There are seven such cases, according to what has been related from Abū ʿUmar al-Ishbīlī, may Allah have mercy on him.
Ibn ʿAttāb related from the judge Ibn Bishr that he said: “Abū ʿUmar al-Ishbīlī, may Allah have mercy on him, used to say: ‘There are seven cases in which ignorance is not accepted as an excuse.’ He would not explain them, and when we asked him to clarify them for us…” He said: “I have continued searching for them to this day, but have found only some of them.”
He mentioned five cases differing in nature. Some concern ignorance of the legal consequence that silence extinguishes the silent party’s right; others concern ignorance of the amount involved in the transgression. He said: “He brought out his book for us, and we copied them down.” They are: the present case; the case of a slave woman who is freed while married to a slave, whose husband then has intercourse with her while she knows of her emancipation, but who later wishes to exercise her right to choose and pleads ignorance; and the case of a wife granted authority to divorce herself who pronounces three divorces during the same sitting, without her husband contesting her pronouncement, but whose husband later wishes to contest it