because he is prohibited from gifting that to a stranger, just as he is prohibited from gifting it to an heir. Therefore, his acknowledgement of what he does not possess the right to gift is not valid, unlike the third or less. Our view is that this is an acknowledgement regarding which he is not suspected, so it is accepted, like an acknowledgement made during health. This is corroborated by the fact that the state of illness is closer to caution for his own self, discharging his liability, and striving for truthfulness; thus, it is more worthy of acceptance. It differs from an acknowledgement for an heir because that is suspect, as we shall mention.

Section: If he acknowledges a debt to a stranger during his terminal illness, while he also owes a debt established by evidence or by an acknowledgement made during his health, and there is sufficient wealth for both, then they are equal. If there is insufficient wealth to discharge both, the manifest opinion of al-Khiraqi is that they are equal, and this is the choice of al-Tamimi. Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr also said this. Abu 'Ubayd mentioned that it is the opinion of most of the people of Medina, because they are both rights that must be discharged from the capital; neither is prioritized by collateral, so they are equal, as if they were both established by evidence. Abu al-Khattab said: He does not enter into proportional division (muhassa) with the creditors of health. The Qadi said: This is the analogy of the school (qiyas al-madhhab), based on the text of Ahmad regarding the bankrupt person, that if he acknowledges a debt while he already has a debt established by evidence, he begins with the debt that is by evidence. Al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, and the People of Reason (Ashab al-Ra'y) held this view, because he acknowledged it after the right had attached to his estate, so the beneficiary of the acknowledgement must not share with one whose debt was established by evidence, like the creditor of a bankrupt person for whom the bankrupt acknowledged [a debt] after being placed under interdiction. The evidence for the attachment of the right to his wealth is the prohibition against him donating or acknowledging for an heir. Because he is under interdiction, his gifts and donations are not effective; therefore, he does not share with one for whom he acknowledged before the interdiction, nor with one whose debt is established by evidence, like the one for whom the bankrupt acknowledged. If he acknowledges for both simultaneously during illness, they are equal, and the one whose acknowledgement was earlier is not prioritized, because they are equal in status, so they resemble two creditors of health.

860 - Issue: He said: (And if he acknowledges for an heir, the remaining heirs are not bound to accept it except with evidence.)

Shurayh, Abu Hashim, Ibn Udhayna, al-Nakha'i, Yahya al-Ansari, Abu