An acknowledgement differs from evidence (bayyina) for two reasons: First, the custom is to acknowledge (6) receipt before it actually occurs, while there is no custom of providing testimony regarding receipt before it occurs, as that would be false testimony. Second, his denial alongside testimony constitutes an attack on the evidence and a negation of it, whereas this is not the case with an acknowledgement. The Qadi did not mention anything other than this reason in "al-Mujarrad". Likewise, if he acknowledges that he borrowed a thousand from him and received it, or says: "He has a thousand owed by me," then says: "I had not received it, and I only acknowledged it so that I might receive it," then the ruling is the same. This is because it is possible that he acknowledged receipt of it based on the word of his agent and his own opinion, whereas testimony is only permissible based on certainty. As for if he acknowledges that he gifted him food, then says: "I did not take you into possession of it," and the donee says: "Rather, you did take me into possession of it," then the statement is that of the donor, because the fundamental principle is the absence of possession. And if it were in the possession of the donee, and he said: "You took me into possession of it," and he said: "Rather, you took it from me without my permission," then the statement is also that of the donor, because the fundamental principle is the absence of permission. And if it were in the possession of the donee at the time of the gift, the permission of the donor is not considered; rather, the passage of a period of time in which possession could have taken place is considered. And for the one of whom we have said: the statement is his statement, the oath is due from him (6) because of what we have mentioned.

859 - Issue: He said: (And acknowledgement of a debt during one's terminal illness is like an acknowledgement during health, provided it is for someone other than an heir.)

This is the manifest position of the school (al-madhhab), and it is the position of most of the scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All of the scholars from whom we have preserved [knowledge] have reached a consensus that the acknowledgement of a sick person in his terminal illness for someone other than an heir is valid. Our companions narrated another report: [It is not accepted; because it is an acknowledgement in a terminal illness, it resembles an acknowledgement for an heir. Abu al-Khattab said: There is another report that his acknowledgement for an amount in excess of the third is not accepted;]