attributes. Abu al-Khattab said: It is not valid in either of the two viewpoints; because they are unknown, and because camels are not among the fungible items that are guaranteed by their equivalents in cases of destruction, nor are they established in the liability by way of Salam according to one narration. If he owes camels of bloodwit and has a claim against another for the like of them as a loan, and he transfers [the creditor] to him, then if we say: He returns their value in the loan, the Hawala is not valid; due to the difference in category. If we say: He returns their equivalent, the statement of the Qadi necessitates the validity of the Hawala; because it is possible to fulfill the right according to its description from the transferee, and because the choice in delivery lies with the one who owes the debt, and he has consented to the delivery of his wealth which is in the liability of the borrower. If it is the reverse, such that the lender transfers [another] with the bloodwit camels, it is not valid; because if we say: Value is mandatory in a loan, then the category has differed. And if we say: The equivalent is mandatory, the lender has [a right to] the like of what he lent in its attributes and value, and the one upon whom the bloodwit lies is not bound by that.

Section: The fourth condition is that he must transfer with his consent; because the right is against him, so he is not compelled to discharge it from the direction of the debt which is upon the transferee, and there is no disagreement regarding this.

Once the conditions of the Hawala are met and it is valid, the liability of the transferor is discharged, according to the opinion of the generality of the jurists, except for what is narrated from al-Hasan, that he did not view the Hawala as a discharge unless he absolved him. From Zufar it is said: It does not transfer the right. He treated it like a guarantee (daman), and this is not correct; because the Hawala is derived from the shifting (tahwil) of the right, unlike the guarantee, for it is derived from joining a liability to a liability. Thus, each one was hung upon its requirement and what its wording indicates. Once it is established that the right has transferred, then whenever the recipient consents to it, and does not stipulate wealthiness, the right never returns to the transferor, whether fulfilling the right is possible, or it is impossible due to procrastination, bankruptcy, death, or other such things. This is the apparent view of al-Khiraqi, and it is the opinion of al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, Abu Ubayd, and Ibn al-Mundhir. From Ahmad, there is that which indicates that if the transferee is bankrupt, and the recipient did not know of that, he has the right of recourse, unless he consents after...