for that asset? There are other questions as well.

If, however, we hold that contracts may remain pending approval—particularly when seeking permission is impossible, as is the position of the three jurists—then the matter is clearer. People ordinarily consent to the sale, at a higher price, of property they have prepared for sale, unlike property they have acquired for their own use.

Furthermore, although the wronged person has a small entitlement in this property because of the additional sum wrongfully taken from him, part of it belongs to the wrongdoing shopkeeper, and the two shares cannot be distinguished. In such a case, if one co-owner requests its sale, the other, if unwilling, is compelled to sell for his partner’s sake. Thus, when two people jointly own property that cannot be divided—such as an animal—and one requests that it be sold and the proceeds divided, the other is compelled to agree, according to the majority of scholars. This is the position of Mālik, Abū Hanīfa, and Ahmad. Some Mālikī scholars have stated that there is consensus on this, because a co-owner’s entitlement is to half the value of the whole, not the value of a half-share.

The evidence is the Prophet’s statement, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the authentic hadith:

“Whoever frees a share he owns in a slave, and has sufficient wealth to cover the slave’s price, must have the slave assessed at a fair value, neither understated nor excessive. He must then pay his co-owners their shares, and the slave becomes fully free at his expense. Otherwise, only the share he has freed becomes free.”

Thus, he established that the co-owner’s entitlement is to half the value of the whole, and instructed that the entire slave be valued, not merely the co-owner’s share.