The legal ruling on settling a debt or claim by agreeing to accept less than the admitted right.
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Settlement
Primary text
Any settlement based on an admission where the admitting party prevents the full satisfaction of the right until a portion is surrendered is void. This is because it constitutes settling a part of one's own property for another part of the same property, which is an absurdity. This invalidity applies whether the settlement is expressed via the terminology of *sulh* (settlement), *ibra'* (release), or a conditional gift (*hissba*), such as saying, 'I release you from five hundred, on the condition that you give me the remainder.' Even if no condition is stated, but the claimant only receives a part of their due by causing the forfeiture of the rest, it remains prohibited as it constitutes an unjustified taking of the right.
Supporting text
Ibn Abi Ishaq maintains that a settlement upon admission is an unjust reduction of the right, and if the claimant is compelled to relinquish a part against their free will, the taking is unlawful. However, if the admitting party voluntarily relinquishes a part of their right with a willing heart, it is permissible, but this act is not classified as *sulh* nor does it fall under the category of settlement. Al-Khiraqi only termed denial-based agreements as *sulh*. In cases of admission, if the right is satisfied with its own kind, it is repayment (*wafa'*); if satisfied with a different kind, it is an exchange (*mu'awadah*); if the claimant voluntarily releases a part and takes the remainder, it is a release (*ibra'*); and if a part is gifted and the rest taken willingly, it is a gift (*hiba*); none of these are termed *sulh*.