Section: If one reconciles for retribution with a free person whose freedom is known to them, or a slave whose rightful ownership by another is known to them, or if they reconcile with such for something other than retribution, he reverts to the blood money and to what he reconciled with, because the reconciliation here is void, and they both know of its invalidity, so its existence is as its non-existence.

Section: If one reconciles with a man for a location of a canal on his land through which water flows, and they specify its location, width, and length, it is permissible, because this is a sale of a location from his land, and there is no need to specify its depth; for when he owns the location, he owns it down to the earth's depths, so he may leave in it whatever he wishes. If he reconciles with him for the conveyance of water in a watercourse on the landowner's land while retaining his ownership of it, this is a lease of land, so it is a condition that the period be specified, because this is the nature of a lease. If the land is in a man's possession by way of a lease, it is permissible for him to reconcile with a man for the conveyance of water in it within a pre-dug watercourse for a period that does not exceed the duration of his lease. If the watercourse is not pre-dug, it is not permissible for him to reconcile with him regarding that, because it is not permissible to create a new watercourse in land which is in his possession by lease. As for if the land is in his possession as an endowment (waqf) for his benefit, the judge said: He is like the lessee; he may reconcile for the conveyance of water in a pre-dug watercourse for a known duration, but he does not have the right to dig a watercourse in it, because he does not own it, he only receives its usufruct, just like rented land exactly. This entire position is the school of al-Shafi'i. The preferred view is that it is permissible for him to dig the watercourse, because the land is his, and he has the right to dispose of it as he wishes as long as he does not transfer ownership of it to another, unlike the lessee, for the lessee only disposes of it according to what he was permitted; thus, the beneficiary of the endowment is like a lessee who has been granted permission to dig. If the beneficiary of the endowment dies during the period, does the one to whom it transferred have the right to rescind the reconciliation for the remainder of the period? There are two views, based on the case of if he had leased it for a period and died during it. If we say: He has the right to rescind the reconciliation, then if he rescinds it, the reconciler reverts to the heirs of the one with whom he reconciled for the portion of the period that remained. If we say: He does not have the right to rescind, then the one to whom the endowment transferred reverts to the heirs.