it was incumbent upon him to perform it through the contract of reconciliation, unlike the case where he reconciles and performs it without his permission, for he has performed what the denier is not required to perform.

Section: If a third party reconciles with the claimant for himself so that the demand belongs to him, it is inevitable that either he confesses the validity of the claim to the claimant, or he does not confess it to him. If he does not confess it to him, the reconciliation is void, because he is purchasing from him that which has not been established for him, and no litigation has been directed toward him from which he seeks to ransom himself, so it is similar to if he had purchased the property of another from him. If he confesses the validity of his claim to him, and what is claimed is a debt, it is not valid, because he has purchased what the seller is not able to deliver, and because it is a sale of a debt from someone other than the one in whose liability it rests. Some of our companions said: It is valid. But this is not sound, because the sale of an acknowledged debt to someone other than the one in whose liability it rests is not valid, so the sale of a debt in the liability of a denier that is impossible to take possession of is even more so. If what is claimed is a physical object, and the third party says to the claimant: "I know that you are truthful, so reconcile with me regarding it, for I am able to wrest it from the denier." Our companions said: The reconciliation is valid. This is also the school of Al-Shafi'i, because he has purchased from him his property which he is able to deliver. Then, if he is able to seize it, the reconciliation is finalized; and if he is unable, he has the right to rescind it, because he did not deliver to him that which was contracted upon, so he had the right to return to its substitute. It is possible that if it becomes clear that he is unable to deliver it, it becomes clear that the reconciliation was corrupt, because the condition which is the ability to take possession of it was non-existent at the time of the contract, so it was corrupt, just as if he bought his slave and it turned out he was a runaway or dead. If he confessed the validity of his claim to him, but it is not possible for him to fulfill it, the reconciliation is not valid, because he purchased what he could not take possession of, so it is similar to purchasing a runaway slave or a stray camel. If he purchased it while thinking he was unable to take possession of it, and it turned out that taking possession of it was possible, the sale is valid, because the sale encompassed that which is possible to take possession of, so it is valid, just as if they both knew that.