of the year, or when the year has just expired, Mālik’s reported opinions differ over whether the claimant must take an oath. One narration from him says that no oath is required so long as he files his claim within that period. A second narration insists that he must nevertheless swear that his silence—despite knowing of his right—was not an intentional abandonment of pre-emption; once he does so, his claim is admitted. The right is upheld whether he is near or far, even if only a week or so has passed.

Ibn al-Qāsim and others also relate from Mālik that, in the case of a resident who is able to exercise pre-emption and has no excuse for failing to do so while knowing the purchase price, his right lapses if he neglects to demand it. A number of Medinan scholars adopted this view.

Another report from Mālik states that even if the claimant acts after five years he must first swear that his prior silence did not amount to relinquishing the right, after which he may still exercise pre-emption.

Yet another narration regards the resident and the absentee alike: the pre-emption of neither is cut off unless he expressly waives it or behaves in a way that clearly indicates waiver.

Still another report from Mālik holds that a delay of one, two, three, up to five years is not considered excessive and therefore does not bar the pre-emptor—unless, during that time, the purchaser has built on the property, in which case the right is definitively lost, or unless the purchaser brings the matter before the ruler so that the claimant must either take the property or abandon it.