or the river, such as a third or a fourth, it is permissible, and it is considered a sale of the foundation (qarar), with the water being appurtenant to it. It is possible that reconciliation over irrigation from his river and his canal is permissible, because necessity calls for that, and water is something from which taking compensation is permissible in general, as evidenced by the case where one takes it in his water skin or vessel. It is also permissible to reconcile over that which it is not permissible to sell, as evidenced by the reconciliation for the blood of intentional homicide and similar cases, and reconciliation over the unknown. (68)

Section: Reconciliation is not valid over that for which it is not permissible to take compensation, such as if he reconciles with a woman for her to acknowledge (69) the state of marriage for him, because it is a reconciliation that makes the forbidden lawful, and because if she wanted to offer herself for compensation, it would not be permissible. If she gives him compensation for this claim so that he may desist from her, there are two views regarding it: The first is that it is not permissible, because reconciliation in the case of denial is only for the right of the denier to ransom himself from an oath, and this woman has no oath against her. Regarding the right of the claimant to take compensation in exchange for the right he is claiming, the departure of the sexual relationship (bud') from the husband's ownership has no value; khul' (divorce for compensation) was only permitted due to the need for her to ransom herself. The second view is that it is valid, as mentioned by Abu al-Khattab and Ibn Aqil, because the claimant takes compensation for his right of marriage, so it is permissible like the compensation of khul', and the woman offers it to put an end to his litigation and remove his harm, and perhaps an oath might be directed at her because the judge sees that [or because it is legally prescribed in her favor in one of the two narrations]. (70) Whenever she reconciles with him over that, and then the marriage is established by her acknowledgment or by evidence, if we say the reconciliation is void, the marriage remains as it was, because no divorce or khul' occurred from the husband. If we say it is valid, it is possible [for that, and it is possible] (72) that she becomes separated from him by taking the compensation, because he took compensation for what he is entitled to of her marriage, so it is like khul', just as if she acknowledged the marriage for him and he then granted her khul'. (73) If she claimed that her husband divorced her three times, and he reconciled with her over money for her to relinquish her claim, it is not permissible, because it is not permissible for her to offer herself to her divorcee for compensation or otherwise. If she gave him money for him to acknowledge her divorce, it is not permissible in one of the two views, while in the other it is permissible, as if she offered him compensation for him to divorce her three times.