if he confesses to the claimant his truthfulness, and this is based upon the reconciliation of a denier, which we have already mentioned. Furthermore, reconciliation cannot be devoid of being either regarding a debt or a physical object. If it is regarding a debt, it is valid, whether or not it is with the permission of the denier, because the payment of a debt on behalf of another is permissible with or without his permission; for Ali and Abu Qatada, may Allah be pleased with them both, paid the debt on behalf of a deceased person, and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, approved it. If the reconciliation is regarding a physical object with the permission of the denier, it is like a reconciliation by the denier himself, because the agent stands in the place of the principal. If it is without his permission, it is a ransom for the denier from the litigation and an acquittal for him from the claim, and that is permissible. In both cases, if one reconciles on his behalf without his permission, he does not recover anything from him, because he has performed on his behalf something he was not required to perform. The Qadi and Abu al-Khattab derived from this the two narrations regarding one who pays the debt of another that is established without his permission, yet this is not sound, because it has not been established that this is binding upon the denier, nor is he required to pay it to the claimant, so how can it be binding upon him to pay it to someone else! Moreover, because he performed on his behalf what was not binding upon him, he is considered a voluntary giver, just as if he had given charity on his behalf. As for the one who claims that he may recover it, he considers him like the claimant in his claim against the denier and nothing more; as for the notion that recovery of what he paid is mandatory, there is no basis for that at all, for the most that is required for one who pays the debt of another is that he stands in the place of the creditor, and the creditor here had no established right, nor was payment to him required, and nothing is established for him other than the permissibility of the claim; thus, this case is the same. It is a condition for the permissibility of the claim that one knows the truthfulness of the claimant; as for when he does not know, it is not lawful for him to make a claim for something he does not know to be established. As for when he reconciles on his behalf with his permission, he is his agent, and authorization in this is permissible. Then, if he pays on his behalf with his permission, he recovers it from him, and this is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i. If he pays on his behalf without his permission as a voluntary giver, he does not recover anything, and if he pays it intending to recover it, it is derived from the two narrations regarding one who pays the debt of another without his permission; because it has