that he claims is in the other man’s possession, or that the latter owes him a debt. The defendant, unaware of the exact nature of what is being claimed, remains silent, and the two parties then agree that the claimant will abandon his suit in exchange for a sum of money, whether payable at once or deferred. In the view of most jurists such a settlement is valid, because the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said: “Reconciliation is permissible among Muslims, except for a reconciliation that makes lawful what is unlawful or makes unlawful what is lawful.” This ḥadīth was transmitted by Abū Dāwūd and al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ, and it was also authenticated by al-Ḥākim. ʿUmar wrote to Abū Mūsā citing this very report, which strengthens its probative force for the issue at hand.

The advantage of this kind of settlement for the defendant is that he ransoms himself from the claim and from the need to swear an oath. The advantage for the claimant is that he is spared the burden of producing evidence and avoids any delay in obtaining the right he alleges.

With respect to the claimant, a settlement concluded after denial is treated as a sale, for he regards the sum received as compensation for his property; he is therefore bound by the ruling that follows from that understanding. It is as though the defendant had bought the disputed item from him, so the rules of sale apply on the defendant’s side—for example, rescission on account of defect and acquisition by pre-emption if the subject-matter is of a type to which pre-emption applies.

As for the defendant, the settlement constitutes a discharge from the claim: he has paid the money to spare himself the oath, remove harm, end the dispute, and protect his dignity from humiliation and litigation—things that people of noble character are loath to endure.