The wording is literal in its application to Hawala, not agency, so the wording must be taken at its apparent meaning, just as if they disagreed regarding a house in the possession of one of them. The second view is that the statement is that of the transferor, because the base principle is the continuation of the transferor's right against the transferee (12), and the creditor claims its transfer, while the transferor denies it; the statement is the statement of the denier. According to the first view, the creditor takes an oath, and his right is established in the liability of the transferee, he is entitled to demand it from him, and it lapses from the transferor (13). According to the second view, the transferor takes an oath, and his right remains in the liability of the transferee. In both views: if the creditor had collected the right from the transferee and it perished in his possession, each of them is released from the other, and there is no liability upon him, whether it perished due to his negligence or otherwise; for if it perished due to negligence and the creditor was in the right, he has destroyed his own property, and if he was in the wrong, the equivalent of what is in each of their liabilities is established for the other, so they compensate one another, and both are discharged. If it perished without negligence, then the transferee (14) has collected his right and it perished in his hand, and the transferor was released from it by the Hawala, and the transferee was released by his delivery (15), while the transferor says: "The property perished in the hand of my agent without negligence." Thus, there is no liability upon him. If it did not perish, it is possible that the transferor does not have the right to demand it, because he confesses that he is owed a debt by him equal to what is in his possession, and he is entitled to collect it, so there is no benefit in him collecting it from him then delivering it back to him. It is also possible that he has the right to take it from him, [and the creditor has the right to demand his debt from him. It is said: The transferor has the right to take it from him] (16), and the creditor does not have the right to demand his debt, due to his confession of the transferor's release from it via Hawala (17). This is not correct; because if the creditor confesses to that, he is claiming that he collected this property from him without right, and that he is entitled to demand it back. Therefore, in both cases, he is entitled to demand the equivalent of this property collected from him, according to both of them, so there is no...