circumstance—one far removed from suspicion—they say that it is invalid, as a means of closing the door to abuse. From an educational standpoint, this view is better than saying that he may take it, because even if we assume that, in the case of one person out of a hundred, the relevant factor—namely, suspicion—is absent, it will not be absent in the case of others.

“Whoever dies in a place where there is neither a judge nor an executor, some of the Muslims present shall take custody of his estate and, at that point, do whatever is in its best interest, whether selling it or otherwise.”

His statement: “Whoever dies in a place where there is neither a judge nor an executor, some of the Muslims present shall take custody of his estate.” This occurs frequently. For example, a member of a travelling party dies while on a journey, and there is neither a judge to whom they can refer nor a designated executor to whom they can turn. He says: “Some of the Muslims present shall take custody of his estate.” The phrase “shall take custody” is declarative in wording but imperative in meaning; that is, some of those present must take custody of his estate, lest it be lost or the like.

His statement: “and, at that point, do whatever is in its best interest, whether selling it or otherwise.” Thus, he takes custody of the estate in his possession. Then, if it is better to sell it, he sells it; and if it is better to retain it, he retains it. This differs according to the nature of the property and the circumstances. For instance, if the estate includes something that spoils quickly, such as watermelon, then selling it is undoubtedly preferable. If the estate includes something for which retention is preferable, then it must be retained. If the matter is evenly balanced between these two options, it should be left as it is, because the basic principle is that one should not dispose of it. If circumstances subsequently change, he should do what the circumstances require, whether selling it or otherwise.