“Imprison me.” According to the apparent meaning of the author’s words, his property is not sold; rather, imprisonment is used against him. But for how long? Two days, three days, or four? No period has been specified; rather, it continues until he pays. Otherwise, he will remain imprisoned indefinitely. There is no doubt that this causes harm without benefit: harm to the creditor on the one hand, and harm to the debtor on the other.

Therefore, if any scholar were to say that he should neither be imprisoned nor beaten, but that the judge should directly settle the debt from the property in his possession, such a view would have merit. It serves the interests of both parties. As for the claimant, the benefit is clear: he receives what is due to him. As for the debtor, the benefit for him is that he is spared the harm of imprisonment or beating. Then, once the claimant has recovered his due, there is no objection to the judge or the governing authority disciplining this delaying debtor through imprisonment or beating. In that case, such discipline serves the purpose of preventing him from returning to this kind of delay. As for taking prompt action to settle the debt, that serves the creditor’s interest.

His statement: “If he persists and does not sell his property, the judge sells it and settles his debt.” In the phrase “sells it,” the pronoun refers to the property, and “the judge” means the qadi. Whenever the term “the judge” occurs, what is intended is the qadi. However, if he were to establish a body to examine debt cases, that body would then take charge of debt-related matters, rather than the qadi.

Issue: Is it permissible for people to buy when the owner has not consented? It is permissible, because this is a sale carried out by right. A sale is not valid when someone is compelled without right; but when the compulsion is lawful, there is nothing wrong with it. From here, we move on to a problematic issue.