What is the ruling regarding a person who acknowledges a debt to a non-relative during their terminal illness when the estate is insufficient to cover both the acknowledged debt and prior established debts?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Acknowledgment of Rights
Primary text
If the estate is insufficient to cover both the debt acknowledged during the illness and the prior established debts, Al-Kharqi's apparent position suggests they are treated equally. This is the reported choice of Al-Tamimi, supported by Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. Abu Ubayd stated that most people of Medina hold this view because both are rights demanding payment from the principal estate without specific collateral, leading to equality, similar to when both debts are proven by evidence.
Supporting text
Abu Al-Khattab maintains that creditors whose claims originated during the period of health should not share *pro rata* (not be compromised). Al-Qadi supports this, stating it aligns with the analogy of the *Mufllis* (bankrupt person) whom Ahmad stipulated should prioritize the debt proven by evidence over a later admission made during insolvency. This latter view is also held by Al-Nakh'i, Al-Thawri, and the Ashab Al-Ra'y (companions of Abu Hanifa), arguing that because the right attached to the estate after the admission, the one acknowledged during illness should not share with the one whose debt was proven by evidence, paralleling the case of a creditor acknowledged by a bankrupt person after the declaration of bankruptcy.