grounds for dismissing it, and there is no place for evidence in this matter, because they do not disagree regarding a wording that can be heard, nor an action that can be seen. Rather, the transferor claims evidence, and evidence cannot testify to this either by negation or by affirmation.

Section: If the matter is the opposite, and he said: "I transferred your debt to you," and he said: "Rather, you appointed me as your agent," there are two views regarding this as well, for the reason we have previously stated. If we say: The statement is that of the transferor, then he takes an oath and is released from the right of the creditor, and the creditor may collect the money from the transferee for himself, because both of their statements allow him to do so. Thus, when he collects it, he takes it by virtue of his right. If we say: The statement is that of the creditor, he takes an oath and he has the right to demand his right from the transferor and to demand it from the transferee, because he is either an agent or a creditor. If he collects from him before taking it from the transferor, he may take what he collected for himself, because the transferor says: "It is yours," and the creditor says: "It is a trust in my hand, and I have the like of it owed to me by its owner, and he has implicitly permitted (18) me to take it." When he takes it for himself, his purpose is achieved, and he has not taken anything from the transferor. If he fulfills his due from the transferor, he has recourse against the transferee according to one of the two views, because agency may be established by the oath of the creditor, and the right remains in the liability of the transferee to the transferor. The second view is that he does not have recourse against him, because he admits that he was released from his right, and that the creditor only wronged him by taking what was owed to him. Al-Qadi said: The first is more correct. If he had collected the Hawala (transfer) and it perished in his hand through negligence, or he destroyed it, his right lapses according to both views, because if he was in the right, he destroyed his own right, and if he was in the wrong, he destroyed the equivalent of his debt, so it is established in his liability and they compensate one another. If it perished without his negligence, then according to the first view, his right also lapses, because his property perished while in his possession. According to the second, he has the right to have recourse against the transferor for his right, and the transferor does not have the right of recourse against the transferee, because he admits his release.

Section: If they agree that the transferor said: "I transferred your debt to you," then they disagree, and one of them says: "It is a transfer (Hawala) in its specific wording," and the other says: "It is agency (Wakalah) in the wording of a transfer," then the statement is that of the one claiming the transfer, definitively, because a transfer of one's debt does not admit the possibility of agency, so the statement of the one claiming it is not accepted.