Muslim

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues:
This hadith establishes that a mufti is not obligated to listen to the opposing party;
he may simply provide the answer to the issue.
When Hind radi Allahu anha asked the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam whether she could take from her husband’s wealth—since he did not provide full maintenance—an amount sufficient for herself and her children, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, without calling for Sufyan, replied that according to the custom and practice of the time, she could take as much as she needed for her maintenance.
In light of this issue, the scholars have discussed whether, if a creditor is owed a debt by a debtor who does not pay, and some of the debtor’s property comes into the creditor’s possession, the creditor may deduct his due from it. Imam Ibn Qudamah has detailed this as follows:

(1)
If the debtor acknowledges the debt and is also willing to pay, then by consensus, it is not permissible for the creditor to take his due from the property that comes into his possession without the debtor’s permission.
If he does deduct his due, he must return it, even if the property in his possession is of the same kind as the debt.

(2)
If there is some obstacle in the debtor’s payment of the debt—for example, he is destitute and needy, or he requests a delay—then again, by consensus, it is not permissible to take one’s due from the property in one’s possession without the debtor’s permission.

(3)
If the debtor, without excuse or necessity, does not pay the debt, and the creditor can recover his due through the court, then even in this case, it is not permissible to take one’s due on one’s own authority.

(4)
If the debtor denies the debt, and the creditor has no evidence, and he cannot recover his due through the court, then there is a difference of opinion among the imams.
Imam Shafi’i’s view is that the creditor may take his due from the property in his possession, whether it is of the same kind as the debt or not.
One opinion of Imam Malik is the same.
The well-known opinion of Imam Ahmad is that he may not take his due from the property in his possession; he must return that property and demand his debt separately.
This is also the second opinion of Imam Malik.
Imam Abu Hanifah’s view is that if the property in his possession is of the same kind as the debt, then it is permissible; otherwise, it is not permissible.
This is also the third opinion of Imam Malik.
(al-Mughni, Kitab al-Da‘awa wa’l-Bayyinat, vol. 14, pp. 339–340)
The later Hanafi jurists have given the fatwa according to Imam Shafi’i’s position.
(Takmila, vol. 2, p. 580)