the creditor, 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. If the slave produces proof of his freedom, it is accepted, and the Hawala is voided. If the creditor confirms their claim but asserts that the Hawala was not for the price of the slave, his word is accepted upon oath, because the base principle is the validity of the Hawala, and they are claiming its invalidity, so his position is stronger. If they produce proof that the Hawala was for the price, it is accepted, because they have not contradicted it. If the transferor and the creditor agree on the freedom of the slave, and the transferee denies them, their statement against him regarding the freedom of the slave is not accepted; because it is an acknowledgment against someone else, and the Hawala is voided due to the agreement of the one who was returned upon regarding the debt and the one who returned with it upon the validity of the right of recourse, and the transferee acknowledges to the creditor a debt which he does not believe him in, so he does not take anything from him. If the creditor and the transferee acknowledge the freedom of the slave, he becomes free, due to the acknowledgment of the one in whose hand he is of his freedom, and the Hawala is voided in relation to them, and the creditor has no right of recourse against the transferor, because his entering into the Hawala with him is an acknowledgment of his release, so he has no recourse against him.

Section: If one buys a slave, and the buyer transfers the seller for the price to another person, and he collects it from the transferee, then the buyer returns the slave due to a defect, or mutual rescission (muqayala), or a disagreement regarding the price, the transferee is cleared of liability, because he collected from him with his permission, and the buyer has recourse against the seller. If he returns him before collection, the Qadi said: The Hawala is voided, the buyer returns to the liability of the transferee, and the seller is released; thus, no debt remains for him or upon him, because the Hawala was for the price, and it has lapsed due to the rescission, so the Hawala must be voided due to the departure of his right from the wealth transferred by. Abu al-Khattab said: The Hawala is not voided in one of the two views, because the buyer compensated the seller for what was in his liability with his wealth which was in the liability of the transferee, and he transferred his right to him in a valid transfer, and he was released from the price, and the transferee was released from the debt of the buyer, so it does not become void by the rescission of the first contract, just as if he had given him a garment for the price and handed it over to him, then rescinded the contract; he would not take back the garment, and so it is here.