the claimant that he transferred him, the transfer is established for him; because the consent of the transferee is not considered. If he denies the transfer, he takes an oath, and the ruling of the transfer falls away. If the transferee refuses the oath, and judgment is passed against him due to his refusal, and the right is satisfied from him, then if the transferor confirms the claimant, there is no issue. But if he denies the transfer, his statement is accepted, and he has the right to satisfy it from the transferee; because he admits the right to him and claims that the transferee has wronged him, and the debt of the transferee remains against the transferor. If the transferor denies that there is any debt upon him, his statement is accepted without an oath; because the transferee acknowledges his release from him due to his satisfying it from the transferee. If the transferor acknowledges it, the transferee has no right to demand it; because he acknowledges that he was released from it by the transfer, and the transferor confirms the transferee in the fact that the transferee has wronged him and satisfied it from him without right, and the transferee claims that the transferor has also taken from him without right, and that it is incumbent upon him to return what he took from him to him. Thus, it is appropriate that the transferee collects it and hands it over to the transferee, or grants permission to the transferor to pay it to the transferee. If the transferee confirms the transferee in the transfer and pays it to him, then the transferor denies the transfer, he takes an oath, and he seeks recourse against the transferee. The ruling regarding recourse for the debt that is upon the transferor is according to what we have mentioned in the one preceding it.

Section: If there is a debt of one thousand upon him, and a man guarantees it, then the guarantor transfers the debt owner with it, his liability and the liability of the one guaranteed are released; because the transfer is like payment, and the ruling here is like the ruling in the case if he paid the debt on his behalf. If the thousand is upon two men, upon each of them five hundred, and each of them is a guarantor for the other for that, then one of them transfers him with the thousand, both their liabilities are released, just as if he had paid it. If the owner of the thousand transfers a man onto one of them specifically for the thousand, the transfer is valid; because the debt upon each of them is established. If he transfers him onto both of them together, so that he may satisfy it from them, or from whichever of them he wishes, the transfer is also valid according to the judge; because there is no advantage here in terms of category, term, or amount, but it is merely an increase in security, so that does not prevent the validity of the transfer, like the transfer of an insolvent person onto a solvent one. Some of the followers of al-Shafi’i said: The transfer is not valid; because