Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/298)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

whose whereabouts are not known: if he disappears, no one misses him; and if he appears, no one takes notice of him. Shall we say that we wait for this man just as we waited for the first? No, for his case requires a more thorough investigation, since he is an obscure person with no standing in society. Therefore, we wait longer; then, once it becomes most probable that he has died, we rule that he is dead. Here, the judge must search for this person.

The matter also differs according to the degree of state control. Some countries have tightly secured borders: no one can enter them, and if someone does enter, he cannot leave. In such cases, we do not prolong the waiting period, because they are well-regulated and enclosed. Since matters differ according to the circumstances of the individual, the governing authority, and the strength of the system, the ruling in every place and time must be referred to what is appropriate to its circumstances. This is the stronger view.

Accordingly, there are two matters to consider: first, the division of his own estate—that is, once we rule that he has died, his property is distributed; and second, his inheritance from someone else. The author says:

“Then his property is divided in both cases. If his heir dies during the waiting period, each heir takes the amount certainly due to him, and the remainder is held back. If the missing person returns, he takes his share; but if he does not return, its ruling is the same as that of his own property. The remaining heirs may also reach an amicable settlement concerning the amount exceeding the missing person’s entitlement and divide it among themselves.”

His statement, “Then his property is divided in both cases”: “both cases” refers to the disappearance that apparently indicates survival and the disappearance that apparently indicates death.

His statement, “If his heir dies during the waiting period, each heir takes the amount certainly due to him, and the remainder is held back”: if a person from whom the missing person could inherit dies during the waiting period, we retain the missing person’s share and distribute among the heirs whatever exceeds his share. Thus, if the missing person is a son alongside two sons who are present, we hold back one third for him and give each of the two present sons one third, until the matter becomes clear.

يعلم عنه إن اختفى لم يفقد، وإن بان لم يؤبه به، هل نقول: إننا ننتظر في هذا الرجل كما انتظرنا في الأول؟ لا؛ لأن هذا يحتاج إلى أن نتحرى فيه أكثر؛ لأنه إنسان مغمور ليس له قيمة في المجتمع، فننتظر أكثر، ثم إذا غلب على الظن أنه ميت حكمنا بموته، وهنا يجب على القاضي أن يبحث عن هذا الشخص. أيضاً تختلف المسألة باختلاف ضبط الدولة، بعض الدول تكون حدودها قوية لا يمكن أن يدخل عليها أحد، وإذا دخل عليها أحد لا يمكن أن يخرج، فهذه لا نطوِّل مدة الانتظار؛ لأنها محكمة محصورة، وما دامت الأمور تختلف باختلاف أحوال الشخص، وباختلاف السلطان وقوة النظام، فإننا يجب أن نرجع في ذلك في كل مكان وزمان بحسبه، وهذا هو الراجح، وحينئذٍ لنا نظران: النظر الأول: في قسم ماله، يعني بحكمنا بموته يقسم ماله، والنظر الثاني: في إرث من معه، يقول المؤلف: ثُمَّ يُقْسَمُ مَالُهُ فِيهِمَا، فَإِنْ مَاتَ مُوَرِّثُهُ فِي مُدَّةِ التَّرَبُّصِ أَخَذَ كُلُّ وَارِثٍ إِذَاً اليَقِينَ وَوُقِفَ مَا بَقِيَ، فَإِنْ قَدِمَ أَخَذَ نَصِيبَهُ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَأْتِ فَحُكْمُهُ حُكْمُ مَالِهِ، وَلِبَاقِي الوَرَثَةِ أَنْ يَصْطَلِحُوا عَلَى مَا زَادَ عَنْ حَقِّ المَفْقُودِ فَيَقْتَسِمُونَهُ. «ثم يقسم ماله فيهما» «فيهما» الضمير يعود على الغَيْبة التي ظاهرها السلامة والتي ظاهرها الهلاك. قوله: «فإن مات مورِّثه في مدة التربص أخذ كل وارث إذاً اليقين ووقِف ما بقي» إذا مات مورثه، يعني مات شخص يرثه المفقود في مدة الانتظار نبقي حق المفقود، ونقسم ما زاد على حقه بين الورثة، فإذا كان المفقود ابناً مع ابنين موجودين نوقف له الثلث، ونعطي الابنين الموجودين كل واحد ثلثاً حتى يتبين الأمر.