It also comprises a settlement between an armed rebel faction and the just faction: when rebels rise up against the imam, he must open negotiations with them, remove the injustices they demand be removed, and conclude an agreement with them.

Another instance is when discord is feared between husband and wife. The judge sends an arbiter from the husband’s family and another from the wife’s family, and the two pursue whatever they deem sound—whether that means keeping the spouses together or effecting a separation.

A further type is the settlement between disputants over property, which is the focus of the present discussion.

Reconciliation in matters of property is divided into two kinds:
1 – a settlement based on acknowledgment, and
2 – a settlement based on denial.

Each kind has its own rulings.

I. A settlement based on acknowledgment is of two varieties:
(a) A settlement involving the same genus as the acknowledged right. For example, a person admits owing a debt and the creditor waives part of it, or he admits ownership of an item and then grants part of it as a gift. Such a settlement is valid, for the owner of the right is free to waive or bestow any portion of it.

(b) A settlement whereby the acknowledged right is exchanged for something of a different genus. This too is valid, but it is then treated as a contract of exchange—whether a sale, currency exchange, or some other form—and therefore the rulings governing that specific exchange apply.

II. A settlement based on denial occurs when someone claims that another holds a specific item or owes him a debt, the defendant denies it, and they then settle for a sum of money. The settlement is valid: for the denier it constitutes a release, for he is only paying to avert litigation and not in return for a proven obligation; whereas for the claimant it is deemed a sale and is subject to the familiar rules of sales.