What is the ruling when the instruction was phrased as 'I have assigned your debt to you' (Ahaltuka bidaynika), but the authorized party claims it was agency (Wakala)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Assignment (Transfer of Debt)
Primary text
If the phrasing is 'I have assigned your debt to you' and the authorized party claims it was agency, one view favors the claimant of assignment (Hawala) because the literal wording of assignment is the apparent meaning and must be followed, similar to disputes over property possession. Another view favors the claimant of agency (Wakala) because the principle favors the creditor's right remaining against the original debtor, and the claimant of Hawala is denying this existing right. If the ruling favors Hawala, the assignee swears and the debt is established against the original debtor, relieving the creditor. If the ruling favors Wakala, the creditor swears, and the debt remains against the original debtor in favor of the creditor.
Supporting text
If the authorized party collected the money before the creditor recovered it from the original debtor, the authorized party may keep it for themselves under the view favoring Wakala, as the agent's collection is permissible for their own right, and the principal is considered to have authorized it implicitly. If the agent recovers from the principal, one view allows the principal to return to the original debtor, while another view denies this return because the principal admitted their exoneration through the Hawala.