And “his person” means that he can be brought before the court when litigation arises. If, by Islamic law or by customary practice, he cannot be brought before a court, then the transferee is not required to accept the transfer; his consent is essential.

One who cannot legally be summoned before the court is the father. The scholars say that a father may not be pursued for a debt, except in matters of maintenance; as for anything else, he cannot be summoned. Thus, if your father borrowed money from you and you demanded repayment, you could not bring him before a court. Even if you asked that he be summoned, the judge would not hear the case.

So, if someone transferred you to your father, saying, “You are claiming ten thousand from me, while I am claiming ten thousand from your father; I transfer you to your father,” may you refuse? This is a difficult matter: if you refuse, it would constitute a grave disparagement of your father; yet if you accept, your right may perhaps be lost.

We have understood the legal ruling of the issue; but in practical terms, a person should consider the harmful consequences that may result. Honouring his father and preserving his father’s dignity may be better than obtaining what he seeks.

An example of one who cannot customarily be brought before the court is the ruler. For example, someone claims ten thousand riyals from you, while you are owed ten thousand riyals by the emir. If you say, “I transfer you to the emir,” he is not required to accept, and his consent is essential, because the emir cannot be pursued for payment. If we were to compel him to accept the transfer, this would cause his right to be lost; and wrongdoing is darkness on the Day of Resurrection.

Thus, there is some detail concerning the transferee’s consent: if the transfer is to a solvent person, his consent is not taken into consideration.