Inheritance here follows from lineage, and the Lawgiver is concerned that lineage be established and genealogies not be lost. Hence the Prophet ﷺ said: “The child belongs to the marital bed, and the adulterer gets nothing but the stone.” (1) Thus, even if a person strongly suspects that a child was conceived through adultery, if the mother has a husband, the child belongs to her husband—so that people will not be treated as children of adultery and prostitution. The Lawgiver is concerned that people be affiliated with known lineages.

The second view is that, if he is dead, the acknowledger does not inherit from him, because he is under suspicion—especially when he sees him day and night, perhaps does not even greet him, and there is no connection between them: neither knows the other. Then, once he dies, he comes forward saying, “This is my brother.” For we would say: “Where have you been all this time?! You only recognized him after he died and left behind this immense wealth; now you come claiming that he is your brother!”

Accordingly, a middle position between the two views ought to be taken: if there is an indication showing that he is suspect, then he does not inherit from him; otherwise, he inherits. For example, if this person had been absent in one country, while the person whom he claims as his brother was in another country, and they had had no contact, but upon his death he wished to take his share of the inheritance rather than have the wealth go to the public treasury, then it may be said that this acknowledgment is valid. But if he was in the same town—perhaps even nearby, as a neighbor, attending the same mosque, or the like—yet neither knew the other or greeted the other, and then, when he dies, he says, “This is my brother!” then there is no doubt that the suspicion is extremely strong. It should be said to him: “Where have you been all this time?! Did you not know your brother?” This would be a middle position between the two views.