According to the consensus of the jurists of the schools of thought, the verse “And if he is in hardship, then there is a waiting period for him to pay his debt” (Al-Baqarah, 280) implies that the debtor should be given time to pay his debt. The primary outcome of the waiting period for the debtor is that the creditors should wait for the debtor’s discretion to pay his debt at the desired time. This article, using an analytical-descriptive method, attempts to re-examine the message of the above verse, focusing on the meaning of “dhu’usra” and the nature of waiting, and to examine the compatibility of waiting period for the debtor with the obligation of the debtor to work. The main question is whether, from the perspective of the jurists of the schools of thought, it is legitimate to require the debtor to work? Although jurists have not considered this permissible in a practical sense, the findings of this study show that the interpretation made from verbal sources is incomplete and the purpose of the evidence supporting the necessity of looking after the debtor is to negate imprisonment and torture, not to prohibit him from working. Ensuring the rights and interests of creditors and removing losses from them also confirms the obligation to work. Of course, this legitimacy is not due to the dominance of the debtor or their guardianship over the debtor, but rather due to public order and within the framework of the laws and, as some jurists put it, due to the command of the ruler.