What is the ruling on the acknowledgment of lineage by a freed slave concerning his ancestors or descendants?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Claims and Evidences
Primary text
If a freed slave acknowledges an ancestor (father, brother, grandfather, or son of a paternal cousin), there are three views: acceptance, rejection, or acceptance only if he could have lawfully taken a concubine (*istawlad*) before or after emancipation. The view supported by figures like Ibn Mas'ud and Abu Hanifa is that his acknowledgment is accepted concerning lineages where the acknowledgment of free-born individuals is accepted, because he is obligated, acknowledges an unknown lineage, his statement can be true, and the acknowledged party concurs. This reasoning invalidates the arguments against acceptance.
Supporting text
The established legal position is based on the report that 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) instructed Shurayh not to allow *hameel* (a captive) to inherit unless there is evidence. Furthermore, his acknowledgment implies forfeiting the enslaver's right to his inheritance through *walaa*, making it inadmissible, similar to acknowledging clientage to someone else. This contrasts with a free man acknowledging a brother, because *walaa* is a consequence of ownership, while brotherhood is not.