The Effects of a Settlement Contract on Debts

Question:
If he owed him a thousand dirhams, and he settled with him for one hundred dirhams to be paid to him in such-and-such month of such-and-such year, with the condition that if he does not do so, he owes two hundred. Qadi Abu Ya'la said it is permissible, while others have invalidated it. The method for its permissibility according to the majority is for the creditor to immediately remit eight hundred, then settle the remaining two hundred for one hundred to be paid to him in such-and-such month, on the condition that if he delays it beyond this time, there is no settlement between them.

Answer:
The first option is permissible, because this is his right, and there is no riba (usury or interest) in it; this is his right. So if he has a thousand riyals with him, and he says, "If you pay me one hundred riyals immediately, I will forgive you the rest at such-and-such time; and if you do not pay immediately, you owe two hundred at such-and-such time; and if you do not pay immediately, you owe three hundred at such-and-such time," there is no harm in it, because it is lawful and contains no riba, because it is a concession. For example, he says to him, "You owe me a thousand riyals due immediately, but if you pay one hundred now, I will forgive you the rest; if you delay and pay two hundred in Rajab, I will forgive you; and so on." There is no harm in it. He sees that it is expedient, because the correct view is that it is an act of kindness, all of it being kindness and easing the burden, so the correct view is that there is no harm in it.