with his wealth, his word, his person, and the like. Therefore, if one is transferred to a person with this description, it is mandatory for both the creditor and the transferee to accept, and their consent is not considered. Abu Hanifa said: The consent of both is considered, for it is a contract of exchange, thus consent from the contracting parties is taken into account. Malik and al-Shafi'i said: The consent of the creditor is considered, because his right is in the liability of the transferor, so it is not permissible to transfer it to another without his consent, just as it is not permissible to compel him to accept goods in lieu of the debt. As for the transferee, Malik said: His consent is not considered, unless the creditor is his enemy. Regarding the consideration of his consent, there are two opinions for al-Shafi'i. One of them: It is considered; this is also narrated from al-Zuhri, because he is one of those through whom the Hawala is completed, thus he resembles the transferor. The second: It is not considered, because he (the transferor) has placed him (the transferee) in the position of himself regarding the taking of payment, so he does not require the consent of the one upon whom the right lies, similar to appointment of an agent (tawkil). Our view is based on the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "If any of you is referred to a solvent person, let him follow (accept)" (4). Furthermore, the transferor has the right to fulfill the right that is upon him himself or through his agent, and he has placed the transferee in his own position in terms of receiving payment, so it is mandatory for the creditor to accept, just as if he had appointed a man to fulfill it. It differs from when he wants to give him goods for what is in his liability, because he is giving him something other than what is owed to him, so he is not obligated to accept it.

Section: If a man transfers another to Zayd for one thousand, and Zayd transfers him by it to 'Amr, the Hawala is valid, because the right of the second is fixed and established in the liability, so it is valid for him to transfer by it, like the first. Likewise, if a man transfers 'Amr to Zayd for what was established (5) for him in his liability, it is also valid for the reason we mentioned. The repetition of the creditor and the transferor does not harm the contract.

Section: If one buys a slave and the buyer transfers the seller for the price (6), then the slave turns out to be free or someone else’s property, the sale is void, and the Hawala is void, because it is demonstrated that there is no price upon the buyer. His freedom is established only by proof or their agreement. If the transferor and the transferee agree upon his freedom, and the creditor denies them, and there is no proof of that, their statement against him is not accepted, because they are invalidating his right. This is like the case if the buyer sells the slave, then he and his seller admit that he was free; their statement is not accepted against the second buyer. Even if they produce proof, it is not heard because they contradicted it by entering into the sale.