and the debts are in merchandise.
If the deceased was himself a creditor and the heirs strike a bargain with his wife whereby they hand her a sum of dinars and appropriate those debts for themselves, the arrangement is invalid—unless the whole estate consists solely of dinars that are still outstanding. In that case they may allot her share in coins of the same mint and intrinsic value.
Suppose a man is owed a certain quantity of food together with ten dirhams and agrees to settle the whole claim for eleven dirhams. Such a settlement is valid if the food had been advanced as a loan; if it arose from a sale, it is not valid.
Anyone who has a claim to food arising from a sale or a salam contract may not settle that claim for dirhams, whether the payment is deferred or immediate, for that would amount to selling the food before taking possession. Nor is it permissible when the dirhams themselves are merely a debt, because that would be exchanging one deferred debt for another.
If, however, he settles a deferred debt for something that is presently on hand, the transaction is valid; and likewise, if he settles property that is present for a deferred debt, it is valid.
Should the creditor stipulate to his debtor that, if the latter brings the debt by a specified date, he will accept only part of it and waive the rest—otherwise the debt remains unchanged—such a stipulation is permissible.
The same legal category includes a man’s settling his debt for garments described only in general terms, for the right to choose those garments within a day or two, for the use of a house, the service of a slave, fruit that has not yet been picked, or crops that have not yet been harvested. All of this is impermissible, whether it is offered in discharge of a debt or accepted in exchange for one.
Ashhab, however, allowed any settlement in which taking possession consists of residing in a house or the like, or of cutting fruit after the first signs of ripeness have appeared, even if full delivery has not yet taken place.
Whoever buys a commodity and then discovers a defect in it may settle for that defect on whatever terms he wishes, and even if the commodity he receives is another slave, the settlement is permissible.
And if someone is owed a sum that is currently due from another man and he settles for