The acknowledgment is established. If he swears along with his witness regarding the payment, it is established; otherwise, the person in whose favor the acknowledgment was made swears that he did not pay him, and the one thousand is established for him. If one of them testifies that he owes him one thousand, and the other testifies that he paid him one thousand, the one thousand is not established against him, because the witness to the payment did not testify to the existence of a debt of one thousand against him; his testimony merely implied that it had been due, and testimony is not accepted unless it is explicit, unlike the first case, for the evidence there established the thousand by its explicit testimony. If he claimed that he loaned him one thousand, and he said, "You have no claim against me," then he established evidence for the loan, and the defendant established evidence that he had paid him one thousand, and the date was not known, he is acquitted by the payment; because no more than one thousand was established against him, and payment can only be for what is owed, so for this reason, the payment was attributed to the established thousand. If he said, "You did not loan me [anything]," then established evidence of payment, his evidence [that he paid the loan] is not accepted; because by denying the loan, he specifically directed the payment toward something else. If he did not deny the loan, but the evidence of payment was dated with a date prior to the loan, it is not permissible to attribute it to the payment of the loan, because a loan cannot be paid before it exists.

1939 - Issue: He said: (If a man dies and leaves two sons, one a Muslim and one an unbeliever, and the Muslim claims that his father died a Muslim, while the unbeliever claims that his father died an unbeliever, the statement is that of the unbeliever, along with his oath; because the Muslim, by acknowledging the brotherhood of the unbeliever, is acknowledging that his father was an unbeliever, and is claiming his conversion to Islam. If he does not acknowledge the brotherhood of the unbeliever, and there is no evidence of their brotherhood, the inheritance is divided between them in two halves, due to the equality of their possession).

His general statement is that if a man dies, his religion is unknown, and he leaves an estate and two sons who acknowledge that he is their father, one of whom is a Muslim and the other an unbeliever, and each of them claims that he died in his religion, and that the inheritance belongs to him to the exclusion of his brother, the inheritance belongs to the unbeliever; because the claim of the Muslim must necessarily either involve claiming that the deceased was originally a Muslim, in which case his children must be Muslims and his unbelieving brother would be an apostate—and this contradicts the outward appearance, for an apostate is not permitted to remain in his apostasy within the Abode of Islam—or he says that his father was an unbeliever and then converted to Islam before his death. He is therefore acknowledging that the original state was as his brother stated, and is claiming that it ceased and changed, while the original principle is the continuation of what was, until its cessation is proven. This is the meaning of al-Khiraqi’s statement: "The Muslim, by acknowledging the brotherhood of the unbeliever, is acknowledging that his father was an unbeliever, and is claiming his conversion to Islam." Ibn Abi Musa mentioned from Ahmad another narration, that they are equal in the claim, so the inheritance is divided between them in two halves, as if two people were disputing over a specific object in their possession. It is possible that the inheritance belongs to the Muslim among them, which is the opinion of Abu Hanifa; because the abode is the Abode of Islam, and it is judged that a foundling found there is a Muslim, and the ruling of Islam is established for the deceased therein if [his original religion] is not known, in terms of the funeral prayer over him, his burial, and his shrouding from the endowment designated for the shrouds of deceased Muslims. Also, because this is his ruling—the ruling of Muslims in washing him, praying over him, burying him in the graveyards of Muslims, and all other regulations—thus, it is the same regarding his inheritance. Furthermore, because Islam is superior and none is superior to it, and it is possible that his unbelieving brother is an apostate whose apostasy was not established before the judge, nor did news of it reach the Imam, and the manifestation of Islam based on this is greater than the manifestation of unbelief based on the unbelief of his father. For this reason, the Lawgiver made his regulations the same as those of the Muslims, in matters other than the disputed one. The Qadi said: The analogy of the school is that we examine; if the estate is in their possession, it is divided between them in two halves, and if it is not in their possession, lots are drawn between them, and whoever draws the lot against his companion swears and is entitled, as we said regarding when they both claim a specific object. His statement implies that if it is in the possession of one of them, it belongs to him along with his oath. This is not valid; because each of them acknowledges that this estate is the estate of this deceased, and that he is only...