the other co-owner for whatever price he wished. Here, the public must purchase food and clothing for themselves; if those whose goods they need were allowed to sell only at whatever price they wished, the harm to the public would be greater.

For this reason, the jurists have said that when someone is compelled by necessity to obtain another person’s food, its owner must make it available to him at the fair market price. A distinction must therefore be drawn between someone who is obliged to sell and someone who is not. Of the imams, al-Shāfiʿī is the least inclined to require an exchange or fix its price. Nevertheless, he requires someone whose food another person needs out of necessity to provide it at the fair market price. His followers disagreed over whether prices may be set when the public is in need; there are two opinions within his school on this question.

The followers of Abū Hanīfah said:

The ruler should not set prices for people unless the public’s right to protection from harm is involved. When a hoarder’s case is brought before the judge concerning the sale, at the prevailing price, of whatever exceeds his own and his family’s food requirements, the judge forbids him to hoard. If the merchant is brought before him a second time over the same matter, he imprisons him and imposes a discretionary punishment as he sees fit, to deter him or protect people from harm. If food merchants act unjustly and charge prices grossly exceeding the goods’ value, and the judge cannot safeguard the Muslims’ rights except by setting prices, he should then set them in consultation with people of sound judgment and insight. If anyone transgresses after this has been done, the judge compels him to comply.

This is clear according to Abū Hanīfah’s position, since he does not recognize placing a free person under legal interdiction. The same holds according to the two, namely Abū