then pre-emption would apply. There is, however, no pre-emption in the millstones themselves—the very stones that grind the grain. According to those Mālikīs who do recognise pre-emption here, it relates only to the hall, the building, and the water-control dams. Ibn Dīnār declared that pre-emption is never due in a mill unless the jointly-owned land around it is sold together with the mill, in which case the mill accompanies the land into the pre-emption; but if the mill is sold by itself, no such right exists.

Likewise, no pre-emption attaches to any livestock, nor to movables of every kind—cloth, ships, and the like—nor to precious stones, ready cash, or debts. Some companions of Mālik, and this is also reported from him, held that if a debt owed by a man is sold to an outsider, the debtor has the stronger claim to it by way of pre-emption. Yet this, strictly speaking, is not shufʿah but rather a measure to avert harm. On the same report from Mālik, a mukātib (a slave contracted to purchase his freedom) is more entitled than any buyer to whichever instalments of his contract have been sold. The sound conclusion, upon reflection, is that pre-emption exists only in property whose boundaries can be demarcated at the time of partition.

There is further disagreement within Mālik’s school over pre-emption in leases. Some reject it outright, while others affirm it. Ibn al-Qāsim relates from Mālik that when a tract of land is shared by two partners and one of them leases out his share for cultivation, the other partner has a better claim to that lease than the tenant. In my considered judgment, however, no pre-emption applies in such a case; this too is reported from Mālik by the scholars of Medina. His statement in the Muwaṭṭaʾ, “No pre-emption is due in whatever cannot sustain division; pre-emption pertains only to land that can be divided and bounded,” supports what we have said. Mālik said: “There is no pre-emption in…"