BOOK OF JUDICIAL RULINGS

1910 - Issue: Abu al-Qasim, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "If a man dies and leaves behind two sons and two hundred dirhams, and one of the two sons acknowledges a debt of one hundred dirhams owed by his father to a third party, he shall pay the claimant half of what he holds as his inheritance from his father. This is unless the acknowledging son is of upright character (adl), and the creditor wishes to take an oath along with the son's testimony to claim the hundred, in which case the remaining hundred shall be shared between the two sons."

This issue concerns the acknowledgment of debt by some of the heirs, which we have already mentioned in the Book of Acknowledgment (1). The acknowledgment only binds the acknowledging party to the extent of his share of the inheritance, which is half in this case. Therefore, he is liable for half the debt, which is fifty dirhams, and he testifies regarding the remaining half against his brother. If he is of upright character and the creditor wishes, he may swear an oath alongside his testimony and become entitled to the remainder; this is because there is no suspicion regarding the acknowledging son, as he draws no benefit to himself through this testimony nor does he avert any harm. If a third party testifies along with the acknowledging heir, the testimony is complete, and a judgment is issued in favor of the claimant based on what they both testified, provided they are both of upright character and have rendered the testimony using the phrasing of testimony. The phrasing of mere acknowledgment is insufficient for testimony, as we have mentioned before. If the acknowledgment is from two heirs who are both of upright character—such as if a man leaves three sons, and two of them acknowledge the debt and testify to it—their testimony is accepted, and the remainder of the debt is established against the denier. This is the view held by al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi (2), al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir. Hammad and the jurists of the school of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: The entire acknowledged amount is taken from the share of the acknowledger. This is also a view of al-Sha'bi, and according to this, it would be inappropriate (3) for the testimony of the acknowledger regarding the debt to be accepted, because he would be drawing a benefit to himself by his testimony, which is the avoidance of part of what he acknowledged against himself. Acknowledgment of a bequest that is to be paid from a third of the estate is treated like the acknowledgment of a debt, concerning what (4) we have mentioned.