it is not binding upon him. If he authorizes the sale so that he may own half the garment, it is predicated upon the sale by an unauthorized agent (fuduli), whether it is suspended pending authorization or not. If one of them delays his share of the debt, it is permissible; for if he were to waive his right, it would be permissible, so delaying it is more appropriate. If the partner collects something after that, his partner does not have the right to claim anything back from him. This was mentioned by al-Qadi. The more correct view is that he does have the right to claim back, because a current debt is not deferred by deferment; thus, the existence of deferment is like its non-existence. As for if we follow the other narration, that what one of them collects (28) belongs to him exclusively without his companion, the justification for it is that what is in the liability (dhimmah) does not transfer to specific property except by delivering it to its debtor (29) or his agent. What one of them collects, his partner has no grasp over it, nor does his agent, so no right is established for him in it, and it belongs to the one who collected it due to the establishment of his possession over it by right, so it resembles what it would be if the debt were for two distinct causes. This is not the partition of a debt in the liability, rather his right becomes specific by his collecting it, so it resembles specifying it through absolution. This is also because if anyone other than the collector had a right in the collected property, it would not lapse upon its perishing, like other rights. Furthermore, this collection cannot be otherwise than either by right or without right. If it is by right, no one else shares in it, just as if the debt were for two distinct causes. If it is without right, he does not have the right to demand it from him; because his right is in the liability, not in the specific property, so it resembles what it would be if an usurper took property from him. According to this, what the collector collects belongs to him exclusively without his partner, and his partner does not have the right to claim back from him. If he buys a garment with his share, it is valid, and his partner does not have the right to invalidate the purchase. If he collects more than his right without his partner's permission, the debtor is not absolved from what exceeded his right.

Section: There is a difference of opinion narrated from Ahmad regarding the partition of debt in liabilities. Hanbal narrated the prohibition of that. This is the correct view; because liabilities are neither equivalent nor balanced, and partition requires equalization. As for partition without equalization, it is a sale, and it is not permissible to sell debt for debt. According to this, if they divide it and then some of the wealth perishes (30), the one whose wealth perished has the right to claim against the one whose wealth did not perish. This is the opinion of Ibn Sirin and al-Nakha'i. Harb narrated the permissibility of it, because difference does not prevent partition, just as it would if the assets were different. This is the opinion of al-Hasan and Ishaq. According to this, the one whose wealth perished does not have the right to claim against the one whose wealth did not perish, provided each of them absolves his companion.