knowledge. A group of our companions hold this same opinion, and the opinion of Malik is similar; because insolvency is a defect in the transferee, so he has the right of recourse, [as if one were to buy an item and find it defective; and because the transferor has deceived him, so he has the right of recourse], as if he had swindled the item being sold. Shurayh, al-Sha'bi, and al-Nakha'i said: Whenever he goes bankrupt or dies, he returns to his associate. Abu Hanifa said: He returns to him in two cases: if the transferee dies bankrupt, or if he denies it and swears to that [before the judge. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: He returns to him in these two cases, and if he is placed under interdiction] for bankruptcy; because it was narrated from 'Uthman that he was asked about a man whose right was transferred, and the transferee died bankrupt, so he said: He returns to his right, as there is no loss (tawan) on the wealth of a Muslim man. Furthermore, it is a contract of exchange (mu'awada) in which the counter-value was not delivered to one of the two exchangers, so he has the right of rescission, as if he had exchanged for a garment and it was not delivered to him. Our view is that Hazn, the grandfather of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, had a debt against 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), so he transferred him for it, and the transferee died. When he informed him, he said: You have chosen over us, may Allah distance you. He distanced him merely for his acting to transfer, and he did not inform him that he had the right of recourse. Furthermore, it is a discharge of a debt that contains no taking (qabd) from the one upon whom it is due, nor from the one who pays on his behalf, so there is no recourse in it, just as if he had absolved him of the debt. The hadith of 'Uthman is not authentic; it is narrated by Khalid ibn Ja'far from Mu'awiya ibn Qurra from 'Uthman, and his hearing it from him is not established. It has also been narrated that he said: "in a Hawala or a Kafala (guarantee)." This necessitates pausing [and questioning its authenticity], and it is not sound. Even if it were sound, the statement of 'Ali would be in opposition to it. Their statement that it is an exchange is not correct; because it leads to the sale of debt for debt, which is forbidden. It also differs from an exchange involving a garment, because in that case, there is a taking (qabd) upon which the stability of the contract rests, whereas here, the Hawala is in the position of the taking, otherwise, it would be the sale of debt for debt.