barley. The sellers and buyers were not a fixed group of individuals, nor was there any particular person whose services or property people needed such that he could be compelled to work or sell. Rather, all the Muslims stood on the same footing: they all fought in Allah’s cause. Every adult Muslim capable of fighting took part in military expeditions. Each went on campaign in person, supported by his own wealth, by what he received from charitable funds or public revenues, or by equipment provided by someone else. Compelling sellers to sell their goods only at a specified price would therefore have been unjustified coercion. If compelling them to sell in the first place was impermissible, compelling them to accept a fixed price was likewise impermissible.

As for someone who is personally obliged to sell, an example is the person whose selling price the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, determined, thereby imposing a price upon him. Thus, it is reported in the two Sahīh collections that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

“Whoever frees his share in a slave and possesses enough wealth to cover the slave’s price shall have the slave fairly valued, without undervaluation or overvaluation. He shall then pay his partners their shares, and the slave shall become wholly free at his expense.”

Here, since the co-owner was obliged to enable his partner to emancipate the remaining share, so that the slave could become entirely free, his compensation was fixed by having the whole slave fairly valued, without undervaluation or overvaluation, and paying him his proportion of that value. According to the great majority of scholars, including Mālik, Abū Hanīfah and Ahmad, the co-owner is entitled to half the total value, not the value of a half-share.

For this reason, these scholars said: Anything that cannot be divided is to be sold and its price divided if one of the co-owners requests this;