to analogy. The eminent scholar Ibn al-Qayyim refuted this objection and explained that ḥawāla actually accords with analogy, for it belongs to the category of settling a right, not to that of sale. He said, “Even if it were considered a sale of one debt for another, the Lawgiver has issued no prohibition against it; on the contrary, the principles of the Sharīʿah point to its permissibility, for they allow the transfer of a debt from the liability of the assignor to that of the assignee.”

A ḥawāla is only valid when certain conditions are satisfied:

Condition 1 – The debt must already be firmly established against the assignee, because the contract obliges him to pay it. If the liability is still uncertain and liable to be annulled, the ḥawāla does not attach to it. Hence, one may not assign the price of goods while an option of cancellation is still in force, and a son may not assign a debt to his father without the father’s consent.

Condition 2 – The two debts (the one being assigned and the one owed by the assignee) must be identical in four respects:

1. Kind: both must belong to the same genus, such as silver coins.
2. Description: for instance, coined dirhams for coined dirhams, or Saudi currency for the same Saudi currency.
3. Term: both must share the same due date, whether immediate or deferred. If one debt is payable now and the other after a month—or one after a month and the other after two months—the ḥawāla is invalid.
4. Amount: the debts must be equal. A ḥawāla of 100 riyals in exchange for 90 riyals, for example, is not permissible, because the contract is a facilitative arrangement like a loan; permitting disparity would convert it from an act of benevolence into a quest for gain, and that is impermissible just as