the youngest; its seventh is twenty-six. Thirteen is added to what is in the hand of each one of his brothers, so he possesses one hundred and ninety-five. She takes from the middle one three out of thirteen, which is forty-five, and adds it to what is in the hand of the eldest; he comes to possess two hundred and forty. She takes three-quarters of it, which is one hundred and eighty, while sixty remains for him. One hundred and fifty remains for the middle one, and one hundred and fifty-six remains for the youngest. It returns by reduction to its sixth, which is ninety-one.

Section: If a man leaves a son and he acknowledges a brother then denies him, his denial is not accepted, and he is obligated to pay him half of what is in his hand. If he acknowledges another after his denial, it is possible that he is not obligated to pay him anything, because there is no surplus in his hand beyond his inheritance. This is the statement of Ibn Abi Layla. If he has not yet paid anything to the first, he is obligated to pay him half of what is in his hand, and he is not obligated to pay anything to the other. It is also possible that he is obligated to pay the entire remaining half to the second because he caused him to lose it. This is the statement of Zufar and some of the Basrans. It is also possible that he is obligated to pay one-third of what is in his hand to the second, because this is the surplus in his hand based on the assumption that they are three, so it becomes as if he had acknowledged the second without denying the first. This is one of the views of the companions of al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him. The people of Iraq said: If he paid the first by judicial decree, he pays the second half of what remains in his hand; if he paid it without a decree, he pays the second one-third of the entire estate. If he leaves two sons, and one of them acknowledges a brother, then denies him, then acknowledges another, he is not obligated to pay the second anything because there is no surplus in his hand. According to the second possibility, he pays him half of what remains in his hand. According to the third, he is obligated to pay him a quarter of what remains in his hand. The lineage of neither one of them is established in this scenario, while the lineage of the first acknowledged person is established in the first case, but not the second.

Section: If a man dies and leaves two sons, one of them dies and leaves a daughter, and the survivor acknowledges a brother of his through his father, then in his hand is three-quarters of the estate, and he claims that he has a quarter and a sixth, so there remains in his hand