6- The ḥadith designates barley as “food,” contrary to those who restrict the word to wheat alone, for other transmission lines state that the quantity was twenty or thirty sāʿs of barley.

7- It likewise shows that pledging property as collateral while one is resident is permissible; the Qur’anic verse mentions travel only because, in that situation, a scribe and witnesses are usually lacking. This is the view of the majority of scholars, against what is related from Mujāhid, al-Ḍaḥḥāk, and the Ẓāhirīs, who—taking the verse literally—confine pledges to situations of travel and not to residence.

Chapter on the Transfer of Debt (Hawālah) (1)
Hawālah—with a fatḥah on the ḥāʾ—derives from the idea of shifting or moving; it is the transfer of a debt from one liability to another, so that the claim passes from the transferor’s account to that of the transferee.

Its legitimacy is proven by the Sunnah—this very ḥadith—by the consensus of the scholars, and by sound analogy, for people continually need it. Some have described it as “selling one debt for another.”

Deferred delivery (qabḍ) is tolerated therein as a concession, which may seem to depart from strict analogy. The more correct view, however, is that it belongs to the category of settling a right; hence the Prophet ﷺ instructed it when dealing with repayment and discharge of debt.

Its benefit is that it facilitates dealings among people, especially when the creditor is in one town and the transferee in another, making it easier for the creditor to collect.

Should a debtor refer his creditor to someone who owes him nothing, the act is merely an agency for borrowing and collecting, not a hawālah, and it carries none of the rulings of hawālah. The same applies when a person who is not indebted directs someone to collect from a third party who does owe him; this, too, is simple agency, not hawālah.

Acceptance is therefore conditioned on the transferee’s solvency. If the debt were still to remain with the transferor, the transferee’s insolvency would be of no consequence.

That the debt moves and the transferor’s liability is cleared is the position of the four Imams and others.

11- The question remains: if it later becomes clear that the transferee is bankrupt, has died, or denies the debt, may the creditor turn back to the original debtor? On this there is a disagreement whose details will, God willing, appear later.

Scholarly disagreement:
The scholars unanimously require the consent of the transferor (muḥīl) for a valid hawālah, but they differ over whether the creditor (muḥāl) and the transferee (muḥāl ʿalayh) must also consent. Abū Ḥanīfah maintains that their approval is essential, because the transaction is an exchange that needs the agreement of both sides; together they form one party, with the transferor constituting the other.