Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/299)

His statement, “If he returns, he takes his share; but if he does not return, its ruling is the same as that of his own property”: that is, once we rule that he has died, his heirs inherit both his original property and the property he inherited from his deceased relative. Thus, if we held back ten thousand for him from his deceased relative’s estate, then the waiting period elapsed and he did not return, so we ruled that the man had died, and he had previously possessed ten thousand, then the estate totals twenty thousand and is distributed among his heirs.

In summary:

First: the missing person is one who has disappeared, and it is not known whether he is alive or dead.

Second: the jurists say that if the apparent circumstances of his disappearance indicate safety, we wait until he would have reached the full age of ninety years from his birth; but if the apparent circumstances indicate destruction, we wait four years from the time he went missing.

Third: if the waiting period elapses and he does not return, his property is divided among his heirs, because we rule that he has died. If he returns before the waiting period is complete, he takes what was held back for him, and there is no difficulty in this. If someone from whom he could inherit dies during the waiting period, his share is held back as though he were alive and present, while the heirs who are certainly alive inherit their respective shares. Then, if he returns, the matter is clear; but if he does not return, its ruling is the same as that of his own property. If we learn that he died before the death of the person from whom he was to inherit, the property is returned to the heirs. Thus, if a man dies leaving two sons, one present and the other missing, and it later becomes clear that the missing son died before his father’s death, the property belongs to the present son, and there is no difficulty in this.

His statement, “The remaining heirs may reach an amicable settlement concerning the amount exceeding the missing person’s entitlement and divide it among themselves”: this means that if what we hold back for the missing person exceeds his entitlement, the heirs may reach an amicable settlement concerning this excess and divide it among themselves, because he has no heir.

قوله: «فإن قدم أخذ نصيبه وإن لم يأتِ فحكمه حكم ماله» أي متى حكمنا بموته ورث وارثوه مالَه الأصلي، ومالَه الذي ورثه من مُورِّثه، فإذا أوقفنا له عشرة آلاف من مورِّثه ثم مضت المدة ولم يأتِ، وقلنا: الرجل ميت، وكان عنده من قبل عشرة آلاف فالتركة عشرون ألفاً فتورث. وخلاصة الأمر: أولاً: المفقود هو الذي اختفى فلم يعلم أحي هو أم ميت؟ ثانياً: الفقهاء يقولون: إن كان ظاهر غيبته السلامة ننتظر به تمام تسعين سنة منذ ولد، وإن كان ظاهر غيبته الهلاك ننتظر به أربع سنين منذ فقد. ثالثاً: إذا مضت المدة ولم يأت يقسم ماله بين ورثته؛ لأننا نحكم بموته، وإذا أتى قبل تمام المدة يأخذ الموقوف له ولا إشكال، وإذا مات له مورث في مدة الانتظار يوقف نصيبه كأنه حي موجود، ويرث من معه اليقينَ، ثم إن قدم فالأمر واضح، وإن لم يأت فحكمه حكم ماله، وإذا علمنا أنه مات قبل موت مورثه، يرد المال على الورثة، فإذا مات عن ابنين أحدهما موجود والثاني مفقود، ثم تبين أن المفقود مات قبل موت الأب فالمال للابن الموجود، ولا إشكال في ذلك. قوله: «ولباقي الورثة أن يصطلحوا على ما زاد عن حق المفقود فيقتسمونه» يعني حق المفقود إذا وقفناه وزاد، فللورثة أن يصطلحوا على هذا الزائد ويقتسموه بينهم؛ لأنه ليس له وارث.