Consent and Coercion: Examining Contractual Autonomy in Islamic Jurisprudence and Anglo-American Law

Abstract

This research article explores the critical legal concepts of consent and coercion within the framework of contractual autonomy, comparing Islamic jurisprudence and Anglo-American law. The study aims to analyze how both traditions define valid consent and address coercion’s impact on contract formation and enforceability. Employing a doctrinal comparative research design, it systematically examines primary legal principles, doctrinal sources, and relevant case law from both legal systems. The analysis reveals that while both traditions uphold the necessity of free and voluntary consent to validate contracts, their approaches diverge due to differing philosophical and religious foundations. Islamic jurisprudence integrates moral and spiritual dimensions, strictly prohibiting coercion (ikrāh) to ensure contracts reflect genuine consent aligned with Shariah values. In contrast, Anglo-American law focuses on individual liberty and market freedom, recognizing various forms of duress and offering equitable remedies such as rescission. The study concludes that despite their differences, both systems strive to balance contractual freedom with fairness, highlighting important considerations for cross-jurisdictional contract enforcement and harmonization in an increasingly globalized legal landscape. Contractual autonomy is a cornerstone of contract law, embodying the principle that parties freely enter agreements based on their consent. However, the presence of coercion challenges the legitimacy of such consent. This article explores the nuanced interplay between consent and coercion in contractual formation through the comparative lenses of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) and Anglo-American law. By critically examining doctrinal foundations, the standards of consent, and remedies against coercion, this article aims to illuminate how both legal traditions uphold contractual autonomy while balancing fairness and moral considerations. The comparative analysis reveals convergences and divergences shaped by differing philosophical, religious, and socio-legal contexts, offering insights relevant for cross-jurisdictional contract disputes and the harmonization of legal principles.