the acknowledged person is entitled to from the inheritance if his lineage is not established. So we say: if some of the heirs acknowledge a participant in the inheritance, and his lineage is not established, the acknowledger is bound to pay to him the surplus of what is in his hand beyond his own inheritance. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Thawri, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Sharik, Yahya ibn Adam, Waki', Ishaq, Abu 'Ubayd, Abu Thawr, and the people of Basra. Al-Nakha'i, Hammad, Abu Hanifa, and his companions said: He shares with him what is in his hand, because he says: "I and you are equal in the inheritance of our father," and it is as if what the denier took had perished, or had been taken by a wrongful hand, so he levels [the portion] in what remains. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) and Dawud said: He is not bound in outward appearance to pay anything to him. Is he bound between him and Allah Almighty? There are two opinions: the more correct of them is that he is not bound, because one whose lineage is not established does not inherit. As for the opinion that he is bound to pay something to him, there are two views regarding its amount, like the two aforementioned schools of thought.

Our evidence against al-Shafi'i is that he acknowledged a right for its claimant, his truthfulness in which is possible, and the acknowledger has the thing in his hand and is capable of paying it to him, so he is bound to do that, just as if he had acknowledged a specific item. Furthermore, when he knows that this is his brother and he has a third of the estate, and his entitlement to it is determined, while he has some of it in his hand and the [other] owner demands it, he is bound to pay it to him, and it is forbidden for him to withhold it from him, just as in all other cases. The lack of the establishment of his lineage in outward appearance does not prevent the obligation of paying it to him, just as if he had usurped something from him and no evidence had been established for the usurpation. Our evidence against Abu Hanifa is that he acknowledged for him the surplus beyond his inheritance, so he is not bound for more than what he acknowledged, just as if he had acknowledged for him a specific item. Also, it is a right related to a common property by the acknowledgment of one of the two partners, so he is not bound for more than his own share, just as if one of two partners acknowledged a crime committed by a slave. According to this, if he leaves two sons, and one of them acknowledges a brother,