His statement, “His consent is required”: this is the third condition for the validity of a debt transfer.

The evidence for this is that Allah, Most High, says: “unless it be a trade conducted by mutual consent among you” [al-Nisa’ 4:29]. Consent is therefore necessary in all contracts, even in the marriage contract—according to the stronger view—when the woman is a virgin.

His statement, “but not the consent of the assigned debtor”: the assigned debtor’s consent is not required. Thus, if a man transfers his debt to another person, and the assigned debtor says, “I do not accept, because the creditor is harsh in demanding payment and makes life difficult for the debtor. I want the first creditor, because he is gentler and easier to deal with,” he has no right to refuse. The scholars said: This is because the creditor has the right to collect his claim personally or through an agent, and the creditor in a debt transfer is as though he were an agent. Just as the creditor may appoint a fiercely contentious man as an agent to collect his due, he may likewise transfer the claim to him.

If the transferor refuses to make a debt transfer because he is poor, does the creditor have the right to compel him to transfer him to a debt owed to him by a wealthy person?

The answer is: according to the author’s position, he does not have this right, because the transferor’s consent is required in every case.

Thus, if the creditor says, “You presently have nothing, but so-and-so—a wealthy and willing person—owes you such-and-such. Transfer me to him,” and he replies, “I will not transfer you,” then he cannot be compelled. However, if the judge considers it necessary that he make the transfer, then he may compel him to do so. A similar case is where the debtor conceals his wealth and says, “I have nothing,” although he does possess wealth but has hidden and concealed it; then he is compelled to disclose this