transactions valid?

He replied:

There is consensus that using legal stratagems to extinguish the right of pre-emption after it has become established is impermissible. The disagreement concerns only using such stratagems before that right becomes established but after its legal cause has arisen—that is, when the owner intends to sell a share subject to pre-emption. The correct view, however, is that it is impermissible to use stratagems to extinguish a Muslim’s right, and any transactions undertaken for the sake of such unlawful evasion are void.

As for the arrangements described—making it appear that the sale had been rescinded and the share returned to the seller, then presenting the seller as discharged from liability and the share as having been made an endowment—all of this is void. The share remains the buyer’s property, and the pre-emptor’s right to it remains established, unless he relinquishes it in a manner that extinguishes his right of pre-emption. Allah knows best.

He was asked:

Concerning a share subject to pre-emption: it has been established that it was made an endowment, and that a judge ruled that the co-owner was entitled to pre-emption over it, but the co-owner has not established that he exercised that right. What is the ruling?

He replied:

The endowment is not invalidated unless it is established that the co-owner owns the endowed share subject to pre-emption, bearing in mind the scholarly disagreement concerning his acquisition of ownership. The judge’s ruling that he is entitled to pre-emption, by itself, does not invalidate the previously established endowment