famine. He must therefore be compelled to sell it to the people at its fair market value. For this reason, the jurists have said:

Anyone in dire need of another person’s food may take it without the owner’s consent, paying its fair market value. Even if the owner refuses to sell it for anything less than a price above its market value, he is entitled only to its market value.

This makes clear that some price-setting is unjust and impermissible, while some is just and permissible. If it involves wronging people by compelling them, without right, to sell at a price they do not accept, or preventing them from doing what Allah has permitted them, it is forbidden. But if it establishes justice among people—for example, by compelling them to make the exchanges required of them at a fair market price, and preventing them from unlawfully demanding more than fair compensation—then it is permissible; indeed, obligatory.

An example of the former is what Anas narrated:

“Prices rose during the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The people said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, if only you would set prices!’ He replied, ‘Allah is the One who withholds, grants abundance, provides sustenance, and sets prices. I hope to meet Allah with no one seeking redress from me for any wrong I have done him concerning blood or property.’”

This was narrated by Abū Dāwūd and al-Tirmidhī, who graded it authentic.

If people sell their goods in the customary manner, without wrongdoing on their part, and prices rise either because goods are scarce or because the population has increased, then this is a matter left to Allah. Compelling people to sell at a specified price is coercion without right.

An example of the latter is when the owners of goods refuse to sell them despite people’s dire need