He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

About a man responsible for a share of an endowment who owed someone a debt. He leased the estate to that creditor for three years, offsetting the rent against the debt he owed him, this being the requirement of the legal school followed by the endowment’s founder. He owed another man a debt as well. This second creditor had him confined in the governing authorities’ prison for a time, until imprisonment had broken him, and swore that he would not release him until he leased him the share. Because of the imprisonment and threats he suffered, he leased him the aforementioned share. The creditor was already leasing another share, and took possession from the beginning of the term. This lease was for five years, while the amount of the debt was the same.

Should effect be given to the first lease, which accords with the founder’s stipulation and provides a higher rent, or to the second, which was obtained through coercion and compulsion, is below the proper rental value, and contravenes the founder’s stipulation? If he has already collected revenue from it, is there recourse against the first tenant or not? Once the first tenant’s term has expired, who has the authority to lease it?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah. If he had leased it under a valid lease, then any further lease he granted for that same period, or part of it, before the existing lease expired would be invalid, whether the lessor entered into it voluntarily or was coerced. This latter tenant would be acting wrongfully by taking possession of the property and drawing revenue from it. The first tenant would have the choice between rescinding