because his lineage has not been established, so he does not inherit, just as if one acknowledged the lineage of someone whose lineage is well-known. Our position is that he has acknowledged a cause for property whose invalidity has not been judged, so the property is binding upon him, just as if he acknowledged a sale or acknowledged a debt, and the other denied it. This differs from the case where one acknowledges the lineage of someone whose lineage is well-known; for in that case, its invalidity is judged. Furthermore, he is acknowledging to him property that the one acknowledged for claims, and it is possible that it belongs to him, so judgment in his favor is mandatory, just as if he acknowledged a debt against his father, or acknowledged a bequest for him, and the rest of the heirs denied it. If this is established, then what is obligatory for him is the surplus of what is in the possessor’s hand beyond his [the acknowledger's] share of the inheritance. This is the opinion of Ibn Abi Layla, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Sharik, Yahya ibn Adam, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd, and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifa said: If there are two [heirs], and one of them acknowledges a brother, he is obligated to pay half of what is in his hand; and if he acknowledges a sister, he is obligated to pay a third of what is in his hand. This is because the denier has taken what he is not entitled to from the estate, so he becomes like a usurper, and thus the remainder is between them, just as if an outsider had usurped part of the estate. Moreover, the inheritance attaches to part of the estate just as it attaches to all of it, so if some of it perishes or is usurped, the right attaches to the remainder of it, and that which is in the hand of the denier is like usurped property, so they divide the remainder equally, just as if an outsider had usurped it. Our position is that the estate is divided among them in thirds, so he is not entitled to anything from what is in his [the acknowledger's] hand except a third, just as if his lineage were established by evidence. Furthermore, this is an acknowledgement of a right that attaches to his own share and his brother’s share, so he is not obligated to provide more than what pertains to him, like an acknowledgement of a bequest, or like the acknowledgement of one of two partners regarding a debt on the partnership's property. Also, if an outsider were to testify along with him regarding the lineage, it would be established, and if he were obligated for more than his share, his testimony would not be accepted because he would be deriving a benefit from it, as he would be absolving himself of some of what is due against him; and because it is a right which, if established by evidence, would not obligate him for more than the amount of his share, so if it is established by acknowledgement, he is not obligated for more than that, like a bequest. This differs from the case where some of the estate is usurped while they are two, because each of them is entitled to half of every part of the estate, while here he is entitled to a third.