it is dropped. The explanation for this is that if he were to inherit, the acknowledger would cease to be an heir, thus his acknowledgement would be rendered void, and the lineage and inheritance of the acknowledged person would be dropped, so his inheritance leads to the dropping of his lineage and inheritance; therefore, we establish the lineage without the inheritance. As for us, he is a son of established lineage, and none of the impediments to inheritance are present in his case, so he enters under the generality of the Almighty’s saying: "Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females" (19). Meaning (20) he inherits, just as if his lineage were established by evidence. Furthermore, the establishment of lineage is a cause for inheritance, so it is not permissible to sever its ruling from it, and one who is excluded by him is not made an heir while he exists and is free from impediments. The argument they relied upon is invalid; for we only consider the acknowledger to be an heir on the assumption that the acknowledged person does not exist, and his departure from inheritance due to the acknowledgement does not prevent its validity, as evidenced by the fact that when a son acknowledges a brother, he inherits, despite the fact that he exits, by his acknowledgement, from being the sole heir. If it is said: "His acknowledgement is only accepted if the acknowledged person confirms it, so it becomes an acknowledgement from all the heirs, and if the acknowledged person is a child or a person of unsound mind, his statement is not considered, [so everyone whose statement is considered has acknowledged him] (21)." [We say: The same applies here, for if the acknowledged person is an adult, his confirmation is necessary, so everyone whose acknowledgement is considered has acknowledged him] (22), and if he is a minor whose statement is not considered, the lineage is not established by the statement of the other, just as if there were two (23), one of whom is a minor, and the adult acknowledged another brother (24), it is not accepted, and they do not say that his agreement is not considered; such is the case here. Moreover, if a person possesses a slave who is legally ruled to be his property, and he acknowledges that he belongs to another, it is established for the one to whom it was acknowledged, even if (25) the acknowledger exits from being the owner due to the acknowledgement; such is the case here.

Section: If he leaves a son and he acknowledges a brother, his lineage is established, then if he acknowledges a third, his lineage is established