debt transfer in the context of settling an obligation, saying in an authentic hadith:

“Delaying payment when one can afford to pay is injustice. If any of you is referred to a solvent person for payment, let him accept the referral.”

He thus commanded the debtor to pay, forbade him to delay payment, and explained that he acts unjustly if he delays. He also commanded the creditor to accept settlement when referred to a solvent person. This resembles the words of Allah Most High:

“Then let the claim be pursued fairly, and payment be made to him graciously.”

He commanded the person entitled to payment to pursue his claim fairly, and commanded the debtor to pay graciously.

Settling a debt is not a sale in the strict sense, although it contains an element of exchange. Some jurists have supposed that settlement occurs only through the collection of a debt: when the creditor receives payment, they hold, he becomes liable to the debtor for its equivalent, so that what he owes is set off against what he is owed. This is a contrived explanation rejected by the majority of jurists, who said: Rather, settlement is effected by the very property he receives; there is no need to posit a debt owed by the recipient.

Those jurists sought to make the settlement of a debt a settlement through another debt, but there is no need for this. Rather, a debt belongs to the category of the general and unspecified, whereas an identified asset belongs to that of the particular. When a general, unspecified debt is established as a person’s liability, what is intended is actual, existing assets. Whichever particular asset is received in settlement fulfils the purpose of that unspecified debt.