Section: If a debt is established for a man against another person by means of legal evidence (bayyina), this does not prevent the acceptance of his testimony against his debtor regarding another debt or a bequest, according to the opinion of the general body of scholars. Ibn Abi Layla is the exception, as he said: His testimony against his deceased debtor regarding that [debt] is not accepted. It is possible that he prohibited this so that he would not collude with the one for whom he testifies regarding a debt, so that he may then share (5) with the creditors in what he testified for him, and then divide it between them. Our position is that he is of upright character (adl) and not accused, so his testimony in his favor is accepted just as it is for anyone else. This is because he does not draw a benefit to himself by his testimony, nor does he avert any harm by it; rather, he harms himself because the one for whom he testifies will compete with him in collecting the debt and will diminish what he takes. Therefore, it is closer to the truth and more worthy of having his testimony accepted. The possibility we mentioned also exists in the case of a third party, yet it does not prevent the acceptance of his testimony.

1911 - Issue: He said: "If a man dies leaving two sons, and he has a right [proven] by a witness, and he owes a debt that exhausts his inheritance, and the two heirs refuse to swear an oath along with the witness, the creditor does not have the right to swear an oath with the witness of the deceased and become entitled to the right. However, if the two heirs swear an oath along with the witness, the debt is judged [as established], and it is paid to the creditor."

The summary of this is that when a man dies bankrupt and his heirs claim a debt due to him from another person, but the person denies it, they bring a witness of upright character and swear an oath along with him, then the debt is judged as being for the deceased. Then his debts are paid from it, and his bequests are executed from the remaining third, unless the heirs permit otherwise. If the heirs refuse to swear the oath, the creditor does not have the right to swear [along with the witness of the deceased, and become entitled to the right] (1). This is the opinion of Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and al-Shafi'i in the 'new' (al-jadid) school. In the 'old' (al-qadim) school, he said: The creditor has the right to swear an oath and become entitled to the right. This is the opinion of Malik, because his right is attached to it, as evidenced by the fact that if the money were established, his right would be prioritized over the heirs, and he would have the right of oath just as the heir does. Our position is that the debt belongs to the heirs and not the creditor, so he does not have the right to swear an oath regarding it, just as if the debt did not exhaust his inheritance. The proof that it belongs to the heir is that his oath is sufficient; if it belonged to someone else, it would not have been sufficient. Furthermore, the creditor's right is against the estate of the deceased, and the debt belongs to the deceased; for this reason, the witness testifies that the debt belongs to the deceased, and the one who swears an oath with him [is the heir].