; once boundaries have been fixed and access routes separated, there is no right of pre-emption.” He thus excluded pre-emption only where boundaries have been established and access routes separated. This hadith is narrated from Jābir in the Sahīh.

The Sunan collections also report from him that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“A neighbor has the prior right to acquire his neighbor’s property by pre-emption. He is to be waited for, even if absent, when they share a single access route.”

If he granted pre-emption on account of a shared access route, then granting it on account of co-ownership of the property itself is all the more appropriate.

Scholars have differed over a neighbor’s right of pre-emption, holding three views. The most balanced is this: if he shares in the rights attached to the property, he has the right of pre-emption; otherwise, he does not.

Moreover, it is evident that if the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, established pre-emption for property that admits of partition, then property that does not admit of partition is even more deserving of it. The harm associated with divisible property can be removed through partition, whereas the harm of co-ownership is more severe where partition is impossible.

The claim that pre-emption was established to avert partition, rather than the harm of co-ownership, is manifestly false. It is established by the revealed texts and scholarly consensus that when either co-owner requests partition of property that admits of it, his request must be granted. If the harm of co-ownership were greater, the lesser of the two harms would not be removed by incurring the greater. Allah and His Messenger have not required incurring a greater harm to avert a lesser one, for the law of