the sold object, and between one who does not know that; because whoever knows that believes the sale and purchase are void, so his sale was void because he was acting playfully with his words while believing them to be void, whereas he who does not know believes it to be valid, and the conditions for it have become manifest, so it is valid, just as if they knew it was possible to deliver.

Section: If the third party says to the claimant: "I am the agent of the defendant in reconciling with you regarding this physical object, and he confesses it to you, but he denies it only in appearance." The apparent meaning of the words of Al-Khiraqi is that the reconciliation is not valid; because he denies it in appearance to diminish some of the claimant's right, or to purchase it for less than its price; he is therefore causing a loss of right, reaching the acquisition of that for which reconciliation is sought through injustice and aggression. He is therefore in the same position as if he had spoken to him directly, saying: "I know the validity of your claim, and that this is yours, but I will not deliver it to you, nor will I confess it to you before the judge until you reconcile with me regarding it for a portion of it, or a substitute for it." The Qadi said: It is valid. This is also the school of Al-Shafi'i. They said: Then he looks to the defendant; if he confirms him in that, he [the defendant] takes possession of the physical object, [and the third party has recourse against him] for what he paid on his behalf if he gave him permission for the payment. If he denies the permission for the payment, then his word is accepted, supported by his oath, and his ruling is the ruling of one who paid another's debt without his permission. If he denies the agency, his word is accepted, supported by his oath, and the third party has no recourse against him, nor is the ownership of it adjudged to him. As for the ruling on its ownership in secret, if he had authorized the third party in the purchase, then he has gained ownership of it; because he purchased it with his permission, so his denial does not undermine the ownership of it; because his ownership was established prior to his denial, and he is merely an oppressor by denying the third party. If he had not authorized him, he does not own it; because he purchased a physical object for him without his permission. It is possible that it is suspended until his ratification, as we said regarding one who bought something for another without his permission with a price on his liability; if he ratifies it, it becomes binding upon him, and if he does not ratify it, it is binding upon the one who bought it. And if the third party says to the claimant: "The defendant has recognized the validity of your claim, and he asks you to reconcile with him regarding it, and he has authorized me in the reconciliation on his behalf." If he reconciles with him, it is valid, and the ruling is as we have mentioned; because he