The answer is that there is a difference of opinion on this issue. According to the established position of the madhhab, he cannot be compelled.

The correct view, however, is that he may be compelled, provided this causes him no harm.

For example, a person owes someone one hundred dirhams, due after one year. Before the year has ended, the debtor comes to the creditor with the one hundred dirhams and says, “Take what is due to you.” The creditor replies, “No, not until it falls due.” Can the creditor be compelled?

There is a difference of opinion on this issue. The well-known position of the madhhab is that he cannot be compelled, because it is a deferred entitlement and he is not obliged to accept it before its due date.

The correct view is that he may be compelled, unless this would cause him harm. The reason is that when the debt is paid to him early, it is a benefit without any harm, and it also benefits the debtor. The debtor may say, “I now have the money available, but I fear that when the debt becomes due, I may not have any money, and this would cause you harm.”

Thus, the correct view is that if a deferred debt is paid early, the creditor must accept it and may be compelled to do so, since the debtor has given him something better—unless it entails harm. For example, the creditor might say, “We are presently in a time of danger, and I fear that if I take the money from you, it will be stolen,” or, “I am traveling and have nowhere to deposit it,” and similar circumstances. In such cases, he is not required to accept it.

His statement, “or the reverse,” means that if a settlement is made regarding an immediately due debt by increasing it in return for deferral, it is not valid.

For example, a man owes someone one hundred dirhams payable immediately. The debtor says, “I will settle with you on the basis that you defer the payment, making it one hundred and ten.” This is not permissible, because it is usury, and this is the usury that they used to