Is a settlement (Sulh) valid if it concerns something that is impermissible to receive compensation for?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Settlement
Primary text
A settlement is invalid if it involves receiving compensation for something that is intrinsically impermissible to receive compensation for. Specifically, settling a case where a woman agrees to acknowledge a marriage is invalid because such a settlement permits what is forbidden (i.e., payment for conjugal rights). If a woman offers compensation to the claimant to cease their claim (in a marriage dispute), one view holds it is invalid. This is because settlement in cases of denial is only permitted for the denier to redeem themselves from an oath, and here the woman has no oath to take, or for the claimant to receive compensation for their established right. The release of the *buḍ'a* (conjugal right) from the husband's ownership has no fixed monetary value, and *khul'* (redemption/divorce for compensation) is only permitted due to necessity to redeem oneself.
Supporting text
The second opinion holds that the settlement is valid. This view is attributed to Abu al-Khaṭṭāb and Ibn 'Aqīl. They maintain it is permissible because the claimant receives compensation for their right in the marriage, similar to the compensation in *khul'*. The woman offers this to stop the litigation and remove the harm. Furthermore, an oath might eventually be directed toward her based on the judge's view, or because it is legislated for her in one narration. If the settlement is deemed valid, the marriage is established either by her admission or by proof. If the settlement is judged void, the marriage remains as it was because no pronouncement of divorce or *khul'* by the husband occurred. If the settlement is valid, it is possible that she is deemed divorced through receiving compensation, as this acts as *khul'* since she took compensation for what she was entitled to from the marriage.