No one has the right to restrict or confine another individual in a place...

No one has the right to restrict or confine another individual in a place, for this would be contrary to the Islamic principle declared by Rasulollah salla-llahu-alayhi-wa-aalih, “People have dominance over their selves and their wealth”. If one was restricted or confined, it is not obligatory for him to remain (there). In fact it is permissible for him to go to anywhere he wishes, unless this constitutes extreme danger for him.

If he knows that if he does not comply with the detainer, or does not stay in the place of confinement, he would be subjected to extreme harm, then he may remain there. On the other hand, if his dissent is of higher priority, then he must leave even if it causes him harm. The same is applicable to cases of exile and deportation. If a despot sends to exile or deports an individual, he may return back to his normal place unless he would be exposed to danger as mentioned earlier.

If one is restricted or confined, and as a result he incurs losses; for instance he loses his horse, vehicle, goods, or belongings are stolen, then the offender is responsible for the losses incurred by the victim. This is due to the principle of “One may not do, or see harm”, and because it is the accepted norm, and thus is covered by the ruling of guarantee.

In fact it is not unlikely that the guarantee could extend to such cases like when one confines a woman with criminals, and as a result she is raped, or if one confines an individual who is the father/brother of a lady, and consequently the lady is raped. The individual who confined the woman or the father/brother of the lady is responsible for her Mahr or dowry (as one form of compensation).

[This case is only dealing with one particular aspect of the compensations involved, and not with criminal issues and their relevant punishments.] If the one who has been confined or restricted loses income, for example if he normally earns certain amount, and he does not manage to do so because of the restriction or confinement, then the offender is responsible for the loss of income. Rulings This is again based on the principle of “No Harm” mentioned above.

So if the confined usually does one particular job, then the culprit is responsible for the wage lost. If the victim works in more than one job, then the culprit must forfeit the wages for the jobs the confined usually does.