because he is acknowledging a right against someone else, for he is acknowledging what entails the first party sharing in the estate, competing for it, and diminishing his right to it. An individual's acknowledgement against another is not accepted. Al-Shafi'i said: His acknowledgement is accepted, and they share in it, because the heir stands in the place of the deceased. If the deceased had acknowledged it for both of them, it would be accepted; thus, the same applies to the heir. Furthermore, preventing him from acknowledging leads to the nullification of the creditors' rights, as it may not be feasible for them to be present in a single session, and thus his right would be invalidated due to his absence. Also, he whose acknowledgement is accepted the first time, his acknowledgement is accepted the second time, provided his state has not changed, like the deceased. Our position is that it is an acknowledgement concerning a matter to which another's right is attached, in a manner that harms him—an attachment that prevents the validity of his disposal of it—so it is not accepted, like the pledgor's acknowledgement regarding a crime committed by his pledged slave or the perpetrator. As for the deceased, if he acknowledges during his health, it is valid, because the debt does not attach to his property, rather it attaches to his liability. If he acknowledges during his illness for a creditor, the one to whom the acknowledgement was made does not share with the creditors of health for that reason. If he acknowledges during his illness for a creditor whose debt covers his estate, then he acknowledges for another in a different session, it is valid and he shares with the first. The difference between him and the heir is that his first acknowledgement did not prevent him from disposing of his property, nor does it prevent another debt from being attached to it by incurring another debt; therefore, it did not prevent the debt from attaching to his estate by acknowledgement. This is unlike the heir, for he does not have the authority to attach another debt to the estate through his own action, so he does not have that authority through his word, nor does he have the authority to dispose of the estate as long as he has not committed to paying the debt.

Section: If he dies and leaves behind one thousand, and his son acknowledges it for a man, then he acknowledges it for another, it belongs to the first, and the second has no share in it, whether it was in one session or two sessions; because, by his confession to the first, it was established for him.