The Consequences of Unlawful Coercion in the Contract of Sale from the Perspective of Islamic Jurisprudence

Abstract

In Islamic jurisprudence, coercion (ikrah) refers to the act of threatening or forcing someone to perform an action, say something, abstain from doing something, or refrain from making a statement. Coercion is considered one of the acquired impairments of legal capacity and one of the most significant defects in consent and intention in transactions, particularly in the contract of sale. The contract of sale is one of the most frequent and essential social and economic transactions upon which individual and societal life depends. The principle is that a sale transaction should be conducted between the parties according to the appropriate legal and religious conditions and regulations, ensuring its validity and the fulfillment of their needs in the best possible manner. However, contrary to this ideal, such transactions are sometimes carried out by ignorant or oppressive individuals in society, leading to a loss of consent and a corruption of free will. Consequently, there is a need to conduct research on the religious rulings of coerced transactions—particularly in the case of sales—aimed at raising public awareness of the detrimental religious and social impacts of these transactions. This research seeks to contribute to the reduction of such challenges and to encourage members of society to engage in healthy financial and social relations. Although the esteemed jurists of Islamic schools of thought have extensively discussed the religious rulings related to contracts and other issues in their legal texts, the specific issue of "the consequences of coercion in the contract of sale" has not, to the author's knowledge, been studied in a comparative manner across Islamic schools of thought. Thus, this research, recognizing this scholarly and jurisprudential gap, seeks to answer the question: "What are the consequences of unlawful coercion in the contract of sale from the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence?" Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method and a library-based, comparative approach, the study concludes that all schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that unlawful coercion is impermissible and invalid. One specific manifestation of unlawful coercion in Islamic jurisprudence is the "coerced sale" (bay' mukrah), on which Islamic jurists are divided into two camps regarding its effects. One group, advocating nullification, includes jurists from the Shafi'i, Hanbali, and some Maliki schools, as well as a few Imami jurists. In contrast, a large group of jurists from the Hanafi, prominent Maliki, and renowned Imami schools argue that coerced sales are voidable but not inherently invalid. They believe that the coerced party (mukrah) has the right to either confirm or rescind the sale, and their subsequent consent can validate the sale retroactively. The Hanafis, however, differentiate between contracts that are irrevocable, such as marriage, where coercion is ineffective, and revocable contracts, such as sales, where coercion is deemed effective. The remaining jurists from the four schools of thought, without distinguishing between revocable and irrevocable contracts, consider the effect of coercion to be equal across all types of contracts.