many of Ahmad’s followers.

Two arguments are advanced in support of this view.

The first is their contention that pre-emption was instituted only to avert the harm arising from the expense of partition, whereas property not subject to compulsory partition entails no such harm.

The second is that granting pre-emption over such property would harm the co-owner. If he sells his share, people will be reluctant to buy for fear of its being taken from them through pre-emption. If he requests partition, his request need not be granted. Thus, he can neither sell nor obtain partition, and so cannot escape the harm caused by his co-owner. Were we to establish pre-emption in order to avert harm from the co-owner who has not sold, this would necessarily harm the selling co-owner. Harm is not to be removed by causing harm.

The first view, however, is more correct. It is authentically reported in the Sahīh that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Whoever has a co-owner in land, a dwelling, or an orchard may not sell until he has informed his co-owner. The latter may choose to buy or decline. If he sells without informing him, his co-owner has the prior right to it.”

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not stipulate that the land, dwelling, or orchard must admit of partition. It is therefore impermissible to restrict the scope of the Messenger’s words without evidence from his own words, especially since he stated this when laying down the basis for the right of pre-emption. No authentic, explicit statement reported from him concerning pre-emption is more firmly established than this. In the two Sahīh collections, it is reported of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that “he ruled that the right of pre-emption applies to everything that has not been divided