The second is that he may be coerced into it, as held by al-Shāfiʿī and a group of Ahmad’s followers. If someone is coerced into uttering words of disbelief, he may utter them while his heart remains secure in faith.

If someone is coerced into “legal transactions,” such as sale, marriage, divorce, zihār (declaring one’s wife forbidden by likening her to a woman one may not marry), īlā’ (swearing to abstain from marital intercourse), manumission, and the like, the majority—including Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Ahmad—hold that any utterance he is wrongfully coerced into making is invalid. Thus, no divorce or manumission takes effect thereby, nor is he bound by any vow, oath, or other such undertaking. Abū Hanīfah, however, distinguishes between transactions which, in his view, admit of rescission and allow an option to cancel, such as sale and the like, and those which do not, such as marriage, divorce, and manumission. The former are not binding under coercion, whereas the latter are. As for someone who is rightfully coerced, such as a belligerent non-Muslim compelled to embrace Islam, what he is coerced into is binding upon him by agreement of the scholars.

Thus, the poet’s statement:

“If compulsion holds true, he is coerced;
And, in your view, the coerced is excused.”

is composed of two false premises.