released him from any claim to the radio for which they had settled. Thus, if the defendant finds a defect in the recorder, he has no right to return it. This is entailed by the respective positions of admission and denial: when you denied that this recorder belonged to him, you believed it to be your own property and that you had not acquired it from him, so how could you return it to him? In your case, then, it is a release, and you have no right of return.

His statement, “and there is no pre-emption”: Suppose I say to a man, “Half of the house in which you live belongs to me,” and he says, “No.” I then take compensation from him for what I claimed. His partner in that house may not take, by pre-emption, the share that I claimed, because this share came into the defendant’s ownership not by way of exchange, but by way of release. For when he gave me the compensation, I released him from the claim.

His statement, “If either of them lies, the settlement is not valid for him in the sight of Allah, and whatever he takes is unlawful.” “Either of them” means either the defendant or the claimant. “It is not valid for him in the sight of Allah” means in the matter between him and Allah. Outwardly, if they bring their dispute before a judge in court, he will rule according to the settlement. But inwardly, in the matter between the person and Allah, the settlement is not valid for the one who lies. Accordingly, he may not dispose of the property he has taken while believing that, in reality, it does not belong to him, because he claimed it falsely. Whatever compensation he takes—whether he is the claimant or the defendant—is unlawful and not permissible for him, because he took it without right.

An example of this is where a man claims from another man that this parcel of land belongs to him, while it is jointly owned land. The one in possession of the land denies the claim, and then they agree to a settlement. The defendant gives the claimant one hundred dirhams as compensation for the land. If