the recipient to demand [payment] from the transferee, and the shifting of that to the agent is like its shifting 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.

Section: The third condition is that it must be for a known property; because if it is a sale, it is not valid regarding an unknown [item], and if it is a shifting of a right, then taking possession is considered in it, and ignorance (jahala) prevents that. Thus, it is valid with everything for which a similar item is established in the liability upon destruction, such as currencies, grains, and oils. It is not valid in that for which the Salam contract is not valid; because it is not established in the liability, and a condition of Hawala is the equality of the two debts. As for that which is established in the liability by way of Salam other than fungibles (al-mithliyyat), such as items measured by length or count, there are two viewpoints regarding the validity of a Hawala for it: First, it is not valid; because the equivalent (mithl) in it is not precisely determined, and for this reason, one does not guarantee it by its equivalent in cases of destruction. This is the explicit position of the Shafi'i school. Second, it is valid. The Qadi mentioned this; because it is a right established in the liability, so it resembles property that has an equivalent. It is possible to derive these two viewpoints from the disagreement regarding that for which one settles the loan of these properties. If one owes camels of a bloodwit (diya) and has a claim against another for the like of them in age, the Qadi said: It is valid; because they are specified by the least that the name applies to in terms of age, value, and other attributes.