and any co-owner who refuses is compelled to sell. Some Mālikī scholars have reported a consensus on this, because the co-owner is entitled to half the total value, as this authentic hadith indicates, and he cannot receive that amount unless the whole property is sold. If the Lawgiver requires an owner to relinquish his property for fair compensation because his co-owner needs to emancipate the slave, and the owner may not demand more than half its value, then how much more compelling is the case of someone whose need is greater than the need to emancipate that share—for example, someone desperately in need of food, clothing or other necessities?

The Prophet’s command, peace and blessings be upon him, to assess the whole property at its fair value is precisely a form of price-setting. Likewise, a co-owner may exercise his right of pre-emption to take the half-share from its purchaser at the same price the purchaser paid, without any increase, to avoid the harm arising from joint ownership and partition. This is established by the widely transmitted Sunnah and scholarly consensus. The transaction is thus imposed at that price, without any increase, to secure the benefit of consolidating ownership in one person. How much stronger, then, is the case where a greater benefit is at stake? The purchaser is not entitled to sell it to the co-owner at whatever price he wishes. Rather, he may not demand from the co-owner anything above the price he paid for it.

This is, in fact, a form of resale at cost: the purchaser transfers the goods to someone else for the same price he paid for them. This goes further than requiring a sale at the fair market price. Nevertheless, the purchaser cannot be compelled to sell it to an outsider who is not a co-owner except at a price of his own choosing, since the latter has no need to