Could a debt also be the subject of a donation? Some jurists believe that such a donation is not appropriate due to the impossibility of a debt acquisition. This group of jurists believes that donating debts is a payment to the debtor not in the form of a donation but in the form of a release, since the result is the same: the fall of a debt. The donation of debts to a third party is also considered to be void by this group. In contrast, it is argued by another group of jurists that the acquisition should not solely be interpreted as material possession since the objective of the acquisition is to donate the property that is the subject of the acquisition. This also occurs in debt acquisition. In addition, as we know, if the subject of a donation is in the possession of a donee, no acquisition is required. In this regard, the debts also become the debtor’s acquisition since it is his obligation. Although both the donation and release lead to the same result, their initial effects are different: a donation results in the possession of a debt, and the release leads to the fall of a debt. Such a difference would raise further differences. Regarding the donation of a debt to a third-party, the same happens as the third party possesses a debt after donating it, so that he can be referred to as the debtor, resulting in both domination and acquisition. Accordingly, the donation of a debt to a third-party should also be considered appropriate. This paper focuses on the views of Imami and Hanafi Schools of law in this regard.