the kitaba contract; because it is not stable, for he has the right to refrain from paying it, and it lapses upon his insolvency. The Hawala is valid upon him, however, for a debt other than the kitaba debt, because his status is the status of free people in terms of debts. If the Mukatab transfers his master for a najm (installment) that has become due upon him, it is valid, and the liability of the Mukatab is discharged by the Hawala, and this is equivalent to receiving payment. If the woman transfers her husband for her dower before the consummation of marriage, it is not valid; because it is not stable. If the husband transfers her for it, it is valid; because he has the right to deliver it to her, and his Hawala for it stands in the place of his delivering it. If she transfers for it after consummation, it is valid; because it is stable. If the seller transfers the buyer for the price during the option period (khiyar), it is not valid, according to the analogy of what we have mentioned. If the buyer transfers for it, it is valid; because it is equivalent to settlement, and he has the right to settle before [the price becomes] stable. If the seller transfers the buyer for the price, then [the buyer] discovers a defect, it does not become clear that the Hawala was void; because the price was established and stable, and the sale was binding, and the permissibility [to rescind] only became established upon knowledge of the defect with respect to the buyer. It is possible that the Hawala could be void; because the cause of the permissibility is the defect of the object of sale, and it was present at the time of the Hawala. In every situation where one upon whom there is an unstable debt makes a transfer for it, then the debt lapses—such as the wife whose marriage is rescinded due to a cause on her part, or the buyer who rescinds the sale and returns the object of sale—if that occurs before taking possession from the transferee, there are two viewpoints: First, the Hawala becomes void; due to the lack of benefit in its remaining, and the transferor returns to collect his debt from the transferee. Second, it does not become void; because the right has transitioned from the transferor and did not return to him, and it was established for the recipient and did not cease to be his, and because the Hawala is in the position of taking possession, so it is as if the transferor caused the recipient to take possession of his debt; thus, he returns to collect it from him, and the recipient takes from the transferee. This applies whether taking possession from the transferee was impossible or not. If it was after taking possession, it does not become void, by one viewpoint, and the transferor returns to the recipient for it.

Section: If one upon whom there is no debt transfers a man to another upon whom there is a debt, it is not a Hawala, but rather it is an agency (wakala) in which its rules are established; because the Hawala is derived from the shifting and transferring of a right, and there is no right here to transfer or shift. The agency was only permitted via the word of Hawala because of their participation in the meaning; which is the right of the agent to demand [payment] from the one upon whom the debt lies, like the right of the recipient to demand [payment] from the transferee, and the transfer of that to the agent is like its transfer to the transferor. If one upon whom there is a debt transfers [a creditor] to one upon whom there is no debt, it is also not a Hawala. Ahmad explicitly stated this. Thus, the transferee is not required to pay, nor is the recipient required to accept it; because the Hawala is an exchange, and there is no exchange here; rather, it is a loan (iqtirad). If the recipient collects the debt from him, he returns to the transferor; because it is a loan. If he absolves him without having collected anything from him, the absolution is not valid; because it is an absolution for one upon whom there is no debt. If he collects the debt from him, then gifts it to him, the transferee returns to the transferor for it; because he has incurred a loss on his behalf, and the wealth only returned to him by a renewed contract. It is possible that he does not return to him for it, due to his not having incurred any loss on his behalf. If one upon whom there is no debt transfers [another] to one upon whom there is no debt, this is an agency in a loan. It is not a Hawala; because a Hawala can only exist with a debt upon a debt, and neither of them is found here.