her eighth share, it is not valid. He argued using the statement of Shurayh: "Whichever woman is reconciled over her eighth share without what her husband left behind being made clear to her, that is all suspicion." He said: If a group inherits property, houses, and other things, and they say to some of them, "We will buy you out of the inheritance for a thousand dirhams," I dislike that, and nothing should be purchased from her while she is unaware; perhaps she thinks it is a small amount, while he knows it is a lot. It should not be purchased until she knows it and is aware of what it is. A man only reconciles with another man over something he does not know, and neither knows what the calculation between them is, so he reconciles with him; or there is a man who knows his wealth is with another man, and the other does not know it, so he reconciles with him. But as for when he knows, why would he not reconcile with him? He only intends to diminish his right [and take it away]. This is because reconciliation is only permitted with ignorance due to the need for it to discharge liabilities and remove disputes; thus, when knowledge is possible, there is no need for reconciliation with ignorance, so it is not valid, like a sale.

Section: Reconciliation is valid for everything for which it is permissible to take compensation, whether it is something that is permissible to sell or not. Thus, it is valid for intentional homicide (dam al-'amd), the occupancy of a house, and the defect of a sold item. Whenever one reconciles regarding that which necessitates retribution (qisas) for more or less than its blood money (diya), it is permissible. It has been narrated that al-Hasan, al-Husayn, and Sa'id ibn al-'As offered the one entitled to retribution against Hudbah ibn Khashram seven blood-monies, but he refused to accept them. This is because the property is not specified, so the compensation does not fall in direct equivalence to it. However, if one reconciles for accidental killing with more than its blood money of the same kind, it is not permissible. Likewise, if one destroyed a slave or something other than that, and reconciled for it with more than its value of the same kind, it is not permissible. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: It is permitted, because he is taking compensation for the destroyed item, so it is permissible to take more than its value, just as if he had sold it for that.