acknowledges a brother of both parents, for al-Shafi'i in the manifest opinion of his school established the lineage but did not grant him inheritance, so that it would not be an acknowledgment from a non-heir, for establishing his inheritance would lead to the invalidation of his lineage and his inheritance. Our evidence is that it is an acknowledgment from all the heirs, through which lineage is established for one who would inherit if his lineage were established without his acknowledgment; therefore, he must inherit, just as if he did not exclude him. Furthermore, he is a son whose lineage is established, and no agreed-upon impediment has prevented his inheritance, which is analogous to the case where it is established by evidence. The consideration is his status as an heir at the time of the acknowledgment, or his status as an heir had it not been for the acknowledgment, as evidenced by the fact that if the second state were considered, lineage would not be established when he acknowledges a participant in the inheritance, because that would be an acknowledgment from some of the heirs. If they say: "It is only established because the acknowledged person is also an acknowledger of himself and a claimant of his lineage," we say: Here is the same case, so they are equal.

Section: If he leaves one son, and he acknowledges a paternal brother, he pays him half of what is in his hand, according to the opinion of all. If he subsequently acknowledges another, and they both confirm him, they pay him one-third of what is in their hands, according to the opinion of all. If the second acknowledged person denies the one acknowledged first, his lineage is not established. Al-Qadi said: This is a proverb among the common people, who say: "Let me in, and I will get you out." He has no right to take more than one-third of what is in their hands, because he did not acknowledge for him more than that. Al-Shafi'i said: It is incumbent upon the acknowledger to pay him half the estate as damages, because he destroyed it for him by his first acknowledgment, and it is possible that the lineage of the first does not become void, because it was established by the statement of one who was the totality of the heirs at the time of the acknowledgment. If the first acknowledged person does not certify the second, his lineage is not established, and the acknowledger pays him one-third of what remains in his hand, because that is the excess in his hand. It is possible that he is obligated to pay one-third of the entire property, because he made him lose it by paying the half to the first, while he acknowledges that he is not entitled to anything but one-third. It is the same whether he pays it to him by a judge's ruling or without it, because his acknowledgment is the cause of the judge's ruling. It is also the same whether he knew of the situation at the time of his first acknowledgment or did not know, because intentional acts and errors are equal in the guarantee of what