Thus, if the transfer is founded upon something invalid, it is itself invalid. But if it is founded upon something valid and the underlying transaction is later rescinded, the transfer remains valid and is not invalidated.

If al-Tahir—the seller—demands the price from the person upon whom the transfer was made, namely Sami, and Sami says, “Since the sale has been rescinded, you have no claim against me. I will pay the debt I owe to its original creditor,” does he have the right to do that? He does not. For the one who is supposed to return the price after the rescission is the seller. He will say: “Since the sale has been rescinded, the buyer will demand repayment from me. So give me the money for which you were transferred to me, and I will hand it over to the buyer.”

His statement: “Or the price is transferred to him”—this is the second scenario: someone is transferred to another person for the price of the sold item. That is, the seller transfers someone to collect the price from the buyer, the reverse of the first scenario. For example, al-Tahir sells a book to Abd al-Rahman, while Sami is owed a debt by al-Tahir; so al-Tahir transfers Sami to Abd al-Rahman.

Thus, the matter has two scenarios: at times, the buyer transfers the seller to one of his debtors; and at other times, the seller transfers his creditor to the buyer.

His statement: “And each of them may make a transfer,” means the buyer in the first scenario and the seller in the second.

In the first example, Abd al-Rahman bought a book from al-Tahir for ten riyals and transferred al-Tahir to Sami for the ten riyals. The ten riyals owed by Sami then became due to al-Tahir. Therefore, when the sale is rescinded, al-Tahir may transfer the buyer—Abd al-Rahman—to Sami, because Abd al-Rahman does not have the right to demand Sami.