An example of this is a person who mortgages his house to someone as security for a debt he owes. When the debt falls due, the creditor demands repayment, but the mortgagor—the debtor—refuses. In this case, the mortgagor is compelled to sell his house so that the one entitled to payment may recover his due; thus, he is forced to do so.

Another example is a piece of land jointly owned by two people, but it is too small to be divided. One of the partners asks the other for it to be sold, but the other partner refuses. In that case, the land is sold against the will of the one who refuses, because this is done rightfully, in order to prevent harm to his partner.

The criterion, then, is this: if the coercion is justified, the sale is valid even if the seller is not pleased with it. This is because, in such a case, we have committed no sin, whether through injustice or otherwise; therefore, it is permissible.

An issue mentioned in al-Rawd (1):

If a person is coerced into something and consequently sells his property in order to avert that with which he was coerced—for example, an unjust person comes to him and forces him, saying: “You must give me one hundred thousand riyals now, or I will imprison you.” The man has nothing, so he sells his house in order to pay the one hundred thousand riyals. What is the ruling on his sale of the house?

The answer is that, if we apply our present issue to this condition, was this man coerced into selling the house, or was he coerced into paying the money?

The answer is: he was coerced into paying the money. It is therefore permissible for him to go to someone and borrow from him, take out a loan, receive zakat, or the like.