Explanation of the author's statement: "Therefore, it is not valid from one who is coerced without right"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said, "Therefore, it is not valid from one who is coerced without right". A sale is not valid from one who is coerced without right. The coerced person is the one who is forced to sell, or whose property is usurped for the sake of selling. Therefore, it is not valid from the coerced person except with right. For example, if a tyrant, a tyrannical ruler, forces a person to sell this commodity to a specific individual, and he sells it, the sale is not valid because it did not arise from mutual consent. Similarly, if you know that this seller sold to you out of shyness and embarrassment, it is not permissible for you to buy from him as long as you know that he would not have sold to you were it not for the shyness and embarrassment. For this reason, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) said that it is forbidden to accept a gift if one knows that the man gave it to him out of shyness and embarrassment, because although he did not explicitly state that he was not willing, the circumstances indicate that he was not willing.
And his statement, "Therefore, it is not valid from one who is coerced without right", benefited us, may Allah have mercy on him, by indicating that if one is coerced with right, there is no harm. Because this is the establishment of a right. That is, if we force a person to sell with right, this is the establishment of a right and not injustice or aggression. An example of this is a person who pledged his house to someone for a debt he owed, and the debt became due. The creditor demanded his debt, but the pledgor who owed the debt refused. In this case, the pledgor is forced to sell his house. Why? In order for the owner of the right to recover his right, so he is compelled to do so. Another example is a small piece of land shared between two people that cannot be divided. One of the partners requested that it be sold, but the other partner refused. Here, the land is sold by force against the one who refused. Why? Because this is with right, in order to remove harm from his partner. So the criterion is that if the coercion is with right, the sale is valid, even if the seller is not willing, because we have not committed a sin here, neither by injustice nor otherwise, so it is permissible.
I have a question mentioned in the explanation: if a person is coerced into something and sells his property in order to pay what he was coerced to pay. That is, an oppressor came and coerced him, saying, "You must pay me one hundred thousand riyals now, or I will imprison you." The man had nothing, so he sold his house to settle the one hundred thousand riyals. What is the ruling on his sale of his house?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Do you understand the question, good? He was coerced to pay one hundred thousand riyals and he had nothing, so he sold his house in order to pay what he was coerced to pay?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Correct? It is without right, obviously. He said, "You must pay me one hundred thousand now, or else imprisonment," or he threatened him with killing. Then he sold his house. Is it valid?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, so there are two opinions among the scholars in this issue, and by "scholars" I mean you. Yes, if we apply this condition, was this man coerced to sell the house, or coerced to pay the money? To pay the money. It is permissible for him to go to a person and borrow from him, take a loan, collect from zakah, and the like. Clear? So he was not coerced to sell the house, so the sale is valid. It remains to be said: is it disliked that his house be bought from him because he is coerced to sell it and does not wish to lose ownership of it? Is it disliked that it be bought from him or not? The jurists said that it is disliked to buy from him. And Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said it is not disliked, because if we buy from him, we have done him a favor. Why? To relieve his dire necessity. The correct view is that there is a distinction in this issue. If everyone will refrain from buying from him, and that will lead to the coercer withdrawing his coercion, then here we do not say it is disliked to buy from him; we say it is forbidden to buy from him, and it is obligatory for us not to buy if we know that doing so will remove the coercion. But if the coercer will not be able to withdraw his coercion, there is no reason for the dislike of buying from him. In fact, buying from him is, in reality, what? It is doing him a favor. So the correct view is the distinction in this issue.
And his statement, "Therefore, it is not valid from one who is coerced without right", benefited us, may Allah have mercy on him, by indicating that if one is coerced with right, there is no harm. Because this is the establishment of a right. That is, if we force a person to sell with right, this is the establishment of a right and not injustice or aggression. An example of this is a person who pledged his house to someone for a debt he owed, and the debt became due. The creditor demanded his debt, but the pledgor who owed the debt refused. In this case, the pledgor is forced to sell his house. Why? In order for the owner of the right to recover his right, so he is compelled to do so. Another example is a small piece of land shared between two people that cannot be divided. One of the partners requested that it be sold, but the other partner refused. Here, the land is sold by force against the one who refused. Why? Because this is with right, in order to remove harm from his partner. So the criterion is that if the coercion is with right, the sale is valid, even if the seller is not willing, because we have not committed a sin here, neither by injustice nor otherwise, so it is permissible.
I have a question mentioned in the explanation: if a person is coerced into something and sells his property in order to pay what he was coerced to pay. That is, an oppressor came and coerced him, saying, "You must pay me one hundred thousand riyals now, or I will imprison you." The man had nothing, so he sold his house to settle the one hundred thousand riyals. What is the ruling on his sale of his house?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Do you understand the question, good? He was coerced to pay one hundred thousand riyals and he had nothing, so he sold his house in order to pay what he was coerced to pay?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Correct? It is without right, obviously. He said, "You must pay me one hundred thousand now, or else imprisonment," or he threatened him with killing. Then he sold his house. Is it valid?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, so there are two opinions among the scholars in this issue, and by "scholars" I mean you. Yes, if we apply this condition, was this man coerced to sell the house, or coerced to pay the money? To pay the money. It is permissible for him to go to a person and borrow from him, take a loan, collect from zakah, and the like. Clear? So he was not coerced to sell the house, so the sale is valid. It remains to be said: is it disliked that his house be bought from him because he is coerced to sell it and does not wish to lose ownership of it? Is it disliked that it be bought from him or not? The jurists said that it is disliked to buy from him. And Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said it is not disliked, because if we buy from him, we have done him a favor. Why? To relieve his dire necessity. The correct view is that there is a distinction in this issue. If everyone will refrain from buying from him, and that will lead to the coercer withdrawing his coercion, then here we do not say it is disliked to buy from him; we say it is forbidden to buy from him, and it is obligatory for us not to buy if we know that doing so will remove the coercion. But if the coercer will not be able to withdraw his coercion, there is no reason for the dislike of buying from him. In fact, buying from him is, in reality, what? It is doing him a favor. So the correct view is the distinction in this issue.