It is true that settlement can only take place after a dispute and only in order to resolve that dispute, whereas there is no dispute here, since it is an acknowledgment and a gift. Nevertheless, it may be said: once we know that what is intended by settlement here is remission in the case of a debt and a gift in the case of a specific asset, then words are, in reality, merely vessels, and what matters is the meanings.
Thus, this is called settlement based on acknowledgment. Its condition is that it not be stipulated; and, all the more so, that he not withhold the other’s right unless he agrees to it. If he withholds his right from him unless he does so, saying, “I will not acknowledge your claim unless you remit part of it,” then it is not valid. This is what we mean when we say that it must not be a condition. The second condition is that he be someone whose voluntary gift is valid.
“If he remits part of a debt that is presently due and defers the remainder, only the remission is valid. If he settles a deferred debt by accepting part of it immediately, or the reverse, …”
His statement, “If he remits part of a debt that is presently due and defers the remainder, only the remission is valid,” means: the remission is valid, but not the deferral.
An example of this is a person who owes someone one hundred dirhams, which he has acknowledged. He says to him, “I want you to remit fifty dirhams for me and defer the remainder.” The creditor replies, “No problem; I will do so,” and does so.
The author says: the remission is valid, but the deferral is not. The remission is valid because he has remitted it, saying, “I have remitted fifty dirhams for you, while fifty dirhams remain as a liability upon you.” But the deferral is not valid, because the jurists have a principle: a debt that is presently due cannot be deferred, nor can it validly be made deferred. This is why we previously mentioned, in the discussion of a loan, that if someone borrows something and its repayment is deferred, the deferral is not valid and is not binding.
However, the correct view in this issue, and in the issue of a loan, is that