due to his belief that he did not take it as compensation. If it is a share, pre-emption (Shuf'ah) does not become mandatory upon it, because he considers it to be his own property that has not ceased, and he did not come to possess it through the reconciliation. If the defendant pays [to the claimant] what he claimed, or a portion of it, the rule of sale does not apply to it, and pre-emption (Shuf'ah) does not apply, because the claimant believes that he has received a portion of his right and has taken his own specific property, recovering it from the one in whose possession it is; thus, it is not a sale, similar to recovering a usurped object.

As for the case where one of the two parties is lying, such as the claimant claiming something he knows is not his, [or the] denier denies a right he knows is upon him, the reconciliation is invalid in reality; for if the claimant is a liar, what he takes is an appropriation of property by falsehood, which he has taken by his evil, oppression, and false claim, not as compensation for a right belonging to him, so it is unlawful for him, like someone who threatens a man with death until he takes his property. If he is truthful, but the defendant knows his truthfulness and the establishment of his right, yet he denies it to diminish his right or to appease him with something, it is a transgression of the right and an appropriation of property by falsehood, so it is unlawful, the reconciliation is void, and the property of the claimant is not lawful for him through that. Al-Khiraqi mentioned this, saying: "If he knows what is upon him but denies it, the reconciliation is void." He means in reality; as for what is apparent to us, it is valid, because we do not know the inner state of affairs. The matter is based on outward appearances, and the outward state of a Muslim is integrity.

Section: If he claims against a man a trust, a loan, or negligence regarding a trust or Mudarabah (profit-sharing partnership), and he denies it, and they reconcile, it is valid for the reasons we have mentioned.

Section: If a third party reconciles on behalf of the denier, it is valid, whether or not he confesses to the claimant the validity of his claim, and whether it is with his permission or without his permission. The companions of Al-Shafi'i said: It is only valid if...