This is not the place to discuss these issues at length. The purpose is simply to draw attention to the nature of the claim: “This contradicts analogical reasoning.”

Section

As for debt transfer, those who say that it contradicts analogical reasoning argue that it constitutes selling one debt for another, which is impermissible. This is mistaken for two reasons.

First, there is neither a generally applicable scriptural text nor a consensus prohibiting the sale of one debt for another. What has been prohibited is selling one deferred countervalue for another: something deferred and not yet received in exchange for something else deferred and not yet received. An example is a forward sale in which both the payment and the goods owed are deferred. This is impermissible by agreement and constitutes exchanging one deferred countervalue for another. Selling one debt for another, however, includes exchanging one newly incurred obligation for another, as we have described. It also includes extinguishing one debt in exchange for extinguishing another, or extinguishing one debt in exchange for incurring another. These latter forms are disputed.

The second reason is that debt transfer belongs to the category of settling an obligation, not that of sale. When a creditor receives what is owed to him from the debtor, this constitutes collection of his due. If the debtor instead refers him to another person for payment, the creditor has thereby received that debt in settlement of the debt owed to him by the transferor. For this reason, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, mentioned