Dalīl al-Ṭālib - Marʿi al-Karmi - (363)

Book of Acknowledgement
Introduction
...
Book of Acknowledgement
An acknowledgement is valid only when made by a legally responsible person acting of his own free will, even if he utters it in jest, and whether it is spoken or written. It is not valid by mere gesture—except in the case of a mute person, for whom gesturing suffices.

However, if a minor or a slave who has been given permission to conduct business makes an acknowledgement, it is valid, but only up to the amount for which he was authorized.

If someone is coerced to acknowledge a debt of one dirham and instead acknowledges a dinar, or is forced to acknowledge a debt to Zayd and instead acknowledges it to ʿAmr, the acknowledgement is valid and binding upon him.

An acknowledgement does not itself effect a transfer of ownership; therefore it remains valid even when the declarant ascribes the property to himself1, as in his saying, “This book of mine belongs to Zayd.”

A sick person’s acknowledgement of property in favor of a non-heir is valid and the amount is taken from the entire estate; the same applies to his admission that he has received repayment of a debt from a non-heir. If he acknowledges in favor of an heir, it is not accepted unless supported by evidence.

In determining whether the beneficiary is an heir, what counts is his status at the time of the acknowledgement, not at the time of death—contrary to the rule for a bequest.

(1) This point cannot be treated as a corollary to the dictum, “An acknowledgment is not the creation of ownership,” because the phrase “This book of mine is Zayd’s” is apparently self-contradictory: an acknowledgment reports an existing fact, so how can the book already belong to Zayd? If, however, we assumed that an acknowledgment can create ownership, the wording “My book is for Zayd” would be admissible, for there would be no contradiction. Still, since the genitive construction (idafa) may be used for even the slightest association, the acknowledgment remains valid while we continue to hold that it does not create ownership; what remains obscure is the logical derivation, as is evident. Hashiyat al-Lubadi, p. 481.

كتاب الإقرار مدخل ... كتاب الإقرار لا يصح الإقرار إلا من مكلف مختار ولو هازلا بلفظ أو كتابة لا بإشارة إلا من أخرس. لكن لو أقر صغير أو قن أذن لهما في تجارة في قدر ما أذن لهما فيه: صح. ومن أكره ليقر بدرهم فأقر بدينار أو ليقر لزيد فأقر لعمرو: صح ولزمه. وليس الإقرار بإنشاء تمليك فيصح حتى مع إضافة الملك لنفسه١ كقوله: كتابي هذا لزيد. ويصح إقرار المريض بمال لغير وارث ويكون من رأس المال وبأخذ دين من غير وارث لا إن أقر لوارث إلا ببينة. والاعتبار يكون من أقر له وارثا أو حال الإقرار لا الموت عكس الوصية.

١ لا يصح أن يكون هذا تفريعا على قوله: "وليس الإقرار بإنشاء تمليك" لأن قوله: "كتابي هذا لزيد" متناقض فيما يظهر حيث إن الإقرار إخبار عما في نفس الأمر فكيف يكون كتابه لزيد؟ وأما لو قيل: الإقرار بإنشاء تمليك لصح قوله" "كتابي لزيد" لأنه لا منافاة في ذلك بخلاف الأول لكن لما كانت الإضافة تأتي لأدنى ملابسة صح الإقرار بذلك مع قولنا: هو ليس بإنشاء تمليك لكن التفريع غير ظاهر كما لا يخفى. حاشية اللبدي "ص: ٤٨١".