his testimony in its entirety.)

In summary, whoever testifies with a testimony in which he has a share, such as a partner testifying for his partner regarding property from the partnership, or testifying against Zayd regarding a house belonging to him and to 'Amr, his testimony is void in its entirety. Al-Shafi'i said: There are two opinions regarding it; one of them is like our view, and the second is that his testimony for the other person is valid because he is a third party, so his testimony for him is valid, just as if he had no share in it. An analogy for us can be derived from our position regarding a slave held by three people who bought his freedom from them for three hundred dirhams, and he claimed that they had received it from him. One of them denied having taken anything, while the other two acknowledged it and testified against the denier regarding the receipt. Their testimony against him is accepted, and he shares with them in what was taken of the money. Our position is that it is a testimony, some of which was rejected due to suspicion, so all of it is rejected, just as if a mudarib (speculative investor) testified for the capital owner regarding money from the mudaraba (speculative partnership). If he testified regarding a debt owed to his father and a third party, or if he testified with a testimony that is rejected in part of what he testified to, it is all void.

1927 - Issue: He said: (And when a man dies, leaving behind a son and one thousand dirhams, and a man claims one thousand dirhams from the deceased, and the son confirms it. Then another person claims the same, and the son confirms it. If it is in the same session, the thousand is between them. And if it is in two sessions, the thousand belongs to the first, and the second gets nothing.)

In summary, when the deceased leaves an heir and an estate, and the heir acknowledges a debt against the deceased to a person that covers his inheritance, he has acknowledged that the debt attaches to the entire estate and that he is entitled to all of it. So if he acknowledges it for someone else after that, you look: if it is in the same session, the acknowledgement is valid, and they share in the estate, because the status of the session is treated as a single state, as evidenced by taking possession in matters where taking possession is considered, the possibility of annulling a sale, and the addition of a surplus to a contract; so it is the same in acknowledgement. But if it is in another session, his acknowledgement is not accepted;