and it is likewise impermissible to assign a claim to a deceased person after his death. This differs from assigning to a bankrupt man, for the estate of the dead has vanished altogether, whereas the liability of the living bankrupt still exists.

Whoever is owed money by someone may validly transfer that claim to a third party, whether the debt that third party owes him has fallen due or is still deferred. However, if the debt he himself owes his creditor has not yet matured, none of this is allowed.

Accordingly, it is not permissible to assign a debt whose term has not yet come with the intention of discharging an obligation that has fallen—or has not fallen—due upon another man. By contrast, there is no harm in assigning a debt that is already due upon oneself against a claim one holds over another, whether that latter claim is due or deferred.

If a person assigns his creditor to someone who owes him fifty dinars as settlement for one hundred dinars, and the creditor was unaware of the shortfall, then the creditor has fifty dinars immediately due from the assignee, with no right of recourse against the first debtor for that amount. For the remaining fifty dinars, he may—if he wishes—return to the original debtor.

Should a debt fall due upon a man who then transfers his creditor to another person who in fact owes him nothing, and the creditor knowingly accepts this and absolves his debtor, the jurists of Mālik held two views. Some deemed this transaction a ḥamāla (suretyship) and ruled it as such, saying that it is not a true ḥawala. Others maintained that it is indeed a ḥawala, and this is the authoritative position of Mālik.

Under that view, the guarantor is completely discharged from any pursuit or subsequent claim by the creditor, exactly as stipulated: the creditor has no recourse against the original debtor should he later go bankrupt or die destitute—unless the debtor had deceived him about his insolvency, as mentioned earlier. In that event, the creditor may revert to the first debtor.