it is not voided 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rescission of the first contract, just as if he had given him a garment for the price and handed it over to him, then rescinded the contract; he would not take back the garment, and so it is here. If we say [that the Hawala is void, the transferor has recourse against the transferee for his debt, and no transaction remains between them and the buyer. And if we say] (9): It is not void, the buyer has recourse against the seller for the price, and the seller takes it from the transferee. If the seller then returns and transfers the buyer (10) for the price to the one to whom the buyer had transferred him, it is valid, the seller is released, and the buyer returns to his debtor for the price (11). If the issue remains as it is, but the seller transfers a third party to the buyer, then the slave sold is returned, there are two views regarding the Hawala: One of them is that it is not void, because the buyer's liability was released by the Hawala from the seller's right, and the right became against him for the third-party creditor; this resembles the case if the buyer had paid it to the transferor. Based on this, the buyer has recourse against the seller for the price, and he delivers to the creditor what he had transferred him with. The second is that the Hawala is void if the return was before collection, due to the lapse of the price for which the Hawala was made, and because there is no benefit in the continuation of the Hawala here; thus the seller returns to his debt, and the buyer is released from both of them, like the issue before it. When we say: It is not void, and the buyer transfers the transferee for the price to the seller, it is valid, and the buyer is released from both of them.

Section: If a man has a debt upon another, and he gives permission to a third party to collect it, then he and the authorized person disagree, and he says: "I appointed you as an agent (wakil) to collect my debt," using the terminology of agency, but he says: "Rather, you transferred me (ahal-tani)," using the terminology of Hawala. Or it was the opposite, and he said: "I transferred you for your debt," and he said: "Rather, you appointed me as an agent." The statement is that of the one claiming agency among them, along with his oath, because he claims the continuation of the right as it was, and denies its transfer, and the base principle is with him. If one of them has proof, it is judged by it, because their disagreement is over the wording, and it is a matter upon which proof can be established. If they agree that he said: "I have transferred you with the wealth that I have upon Zayd," then they disagree, and the transferor says: "I only appointed you as an agent to collect for me," while the other says: "Rather, you transferred me for my debt upon you," the statement is that of the one claiming Hawala, according to one of the two views; because the apparent [meaning] is with him, since...