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.

Section: If he claims against a man that he is his slave, and the man denies it, and he reconciles with him over money for the man to acknowledge the state of slavery for him, it is not permissible, because it is a reconciliation that makes the forbidden lawful, for a free man to enslave himself is not permissible for compensation or otherwise. If the defendant gives him money in reconciliation for his claim, it is valid, because it is permissible for one to manumit his slave for money, and it is legally prescribed for the payer (74) to avoid the oath incumbent upon him and the litigation directed toward him. If he claims a thousand against a man, and the man denies it, and the man pays him something for him to acknowledge the thousand for him, it is not valid. If he then acknowledges it, he becomes bound by what he acknowledged, and he returns what he took, because his acknowledgement clarified his falsehood in his denial and that the thousand is indeed upon him; thus he is obligated to fulfill it without compensation, and it is not permissible for him to take compensation for fulfilling what is incumbent upon him. If the denier pays him money in reconciliation for his claim, it is valid, as its mention has already passed.

Section: If he reconciles with a witness on the condition that he does not bear witness against him, it is not valid, because this situation cannot be free from three states: The first is that he reconciles with him that he does not bear witness against him regarding a right for which testimony is required, such as a debt of a human being (75), or a right of Allah Almighty that does not lapse by ambiguity, such as Zakat and similar things. It is not permissible to conceal this, and it is not permissible to take compensation for that, just as it is not permissible to take compensation for drinking wine or abandoning prayer. The second state is that he reconciles with him that he does not bear witness against him with perjury (false testimony). It is mandatory for him to abstain from this and it is forbidden for him to do it, so it is not permissible to take compensation for it, just as it is not permissible to reconcile with him that he will not kill him or usurp his wealth. The third state is that he reconciles with him that he does not bear witness against him regarding what necessitates a Hadd (fixed legal punishment), such as adultery or theft; it is not permissible to take compensation for this because that is not a right of his, so it is not permissible for him to take its compensation, like all things that are not his right. If he reconciles with a thief, an adulterer, or a wine drinker with money, on the condition that he does not report him to the Sultan, the reconciliation is not valid for that, and it is not permissible for him to take compensation.