without compensation. The validity of that does not necessitate its validity in a contract or when it is conditional, such as selling a dirham for two dirhams. It differs from the case where he buys trade goods for their equivalent price, because he did not take compensation for the acceleration [of the debt]. As for if he reconciles regarding a thousand [dirhams] that are due immediately for half of it [to be paid] deferred, if he does so out of his own choice and as a donation, the waiver is valid, but the deferment is not binding; because what is due immediately does not become deferred by [merely] setting a deferment, according to what we have mentioned previously, and the waiver is valid. If he does it because he is being prevented from his right without doing so, or he makes it a condition for fulfillment, nothing is waived either, according to what we mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. Abu al-Khattab mentioned two narrations regarding this, the soundest of which is that it is not valid. The detailed explanation we have mentioned is more appropriate, if Allah the Almighty wills.

Section: Reconciliation is valid regarding an unknown [amount], whether it is a physical commodity or a debt, if it is something that cannot be known. Ahmad said regarding a man who reconciles over a thing: If he knows that it is more than that, it is not permissible unless he discloses it to him, unless it is something unknown and he does not know what it is. Abdullah narrated from him that if a qafiz of wheat becomes mixed with a qafiz of barley, and they are both ground, if he knows the value of the wheat flour and the barley flour, it is sold, and each of them is given the value of his property, unless they reconcile over something and absolve each other. Ibn Abi Musa said: The valid reconciliation is the reconciliation of a wife regarding her dower for which she has no evidence, and she has no knowledge of its amount, nor do the heirs. Likewise, two men who have had dealings and accounts between them over a long period of time, and neither of them has knowledge of what is owed to his companion, it is permissible for them to reconcile. Likewise, someone who has a right owed to him but has no knowledge of its amount, it is permissible for him to reconcile over it, regardless of whether the owner of the right knows the amount of his right but has no evidence, or has no knowledge [of it at all]. The recipient says: "If I have a right upon you, you are absolved of it," and the payer says: "If you have taken more from me than your right, you are absolved of it."