Is it permissible to settle a deferred debt by accepting a portion of it immediately?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Settlement
Primary text
Settling a deferred debt (*mu'ajjal*) by accepting a lesser amount immediately (*halan*) is not permissible. This view was disliked by Zayd ibn Thabit and Ibn 'Umar, with 'Umar prohibiting the sale of a present asset for a debt. This prohibition is also the opinion held by Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Al-Qasim, Salim, Al-Hasan, Al-Sha'bi, Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Al-Thawri, Ibn 'Uyaynah, Hushaym, Abu Hanifah, and Ishaq. The reasoning is that the debtor is exchanging the value he retains (the reduction) as consideration for the prepayment of his debt. The sale of present terms for deferred terms is impermissible, analogous to one not being allowed to give ten now for twenty later. It is also deemed equivalent to selling ten for twenty, similar to a defective transaction. This differs from situations without prior agreement or contract where each party voluntarily forfeits a right without consideration, which is permissible.
Supporting text
It is reported from Ibn 'Abbas, Al-Nakha'i, and Ibn Sirin that accepting a portion of the debt immediately in settlement of the full deferred amount is permissible. Al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin also permitted accepting commodities (*'urud*) against one's claim before its due date, viewing it as trading commodities for a debt already owed, which is valid, just as if one purchased them for their exact value. Ibn Sirin might argue that immediate payment is permissible, and unilateral forfeiture is permissible, therefore combining them is permissible, as occurs without prior agreement.