What is the ruling if the defendant co-owner claims the claimant has no right to preemption?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Preemption (Shuf'ah)
Primary text
If the defendant states that the claimant is not entitled to preemption, the statement of the defendant, coupled with his oath, is accepted. The nature of his oath must correspond to his denial regarding the preemption claim. If he refuses to swear (*nakala*) and judgment is rendered against him affirming the right of preemption, the purchase price must be presented to him.
Supporting text
If the defendant, upon judgment, states that he does not deserve to receive the price, there are three distinct opinions. The first opinion holds that the money remains in the possession of the claimant (*Shafi'*) until the original buyer claims it, whereupon it is delivered to the buyer, analogous to a situation where the defendant admits to possessing a house but then denies it. The second opinion dictates that the judge (*Hakam*) takes custody of the money and preserves it for the owner until the buyer claims it, at which point it is given to him. The third opinion requires the defendant to either accept possession of the money or formally absolve the claimant of responsibility for it, similar to a freed slave (*mukatab*) bringing his manumission payment to his former master, who then claims the money is illicit (*haram*). However, this third view is distinguished from the case of the *mukatab* because the master is still owed the manumission fee independent of what the slave brought, whereas the claimant of preemption is not demanding anything else, so he should not be burdened with absolving a claim he is not advancing.